Rahm and his business [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

detbuch

11-25-2018, 06:57 PM

It's pretty amusing that you picked two of the strongest cities in the USA as your examples of progressive decline. Those elite Hollywood snowflakes and their 15 Billion dollar surplus :rotflmao:

Sea Dangles is correct. What you characterize here is, as he says, lipstick on a pig. What created wealth in these cities is capitalism, not Progressive government. Capitalism creates wealth. Progressivism regulates and taxes it. Capitalism, if allowed to, creates wealth in any system of government. China is an example of what it can do even in a Communist country.

You want to claim a strong Progressive success in Chicago by citing wealth for which Progressivism is not responsible. Actually, the economic "success" you cite has created there one of the major things that Progressives cite as a failure of capitalism--income inequality. The disparity of wealth in Chicago, and in the state of California is far greater than it is in most of the non-Progressive smaller localities in the U.S. And the heavy taxes in Chicago don't spread the wealth near enough to fix that inequality.

And Chicago, as well as other large Progressive cities, suffer from another failure that Progressives try to legislate against, gun violence.

You want to have it both ways. On the one hand, income inequality is supposed to be this huge problem than can bring our country down, but the "booming economic growth, swelling corporate investment and development" in Chicago, as you put it are a really good thing when you want to defend the pig. And gun violence, which you've claimed to be a major scourge in this country is OK, or not so bad, apparently, if its not in the top 20.

Progressivism sucks more milk out of the big tit of capitalism than it can possibly manufacture or grow enough new tits to make up the difference. And the Progressive spawn of infinite genders, and of the social, cultural, and philosophical voids created by the destruction of basic absolutes leaves us with a weak thread of societal coherence which leads to more violence against each other, more hate and misunderstanding, more jealousy and revenge, more of the things that rip societies apart, not the things that hold it together. It's not income inequality or guns that are the threat to the wealth and well being of this country.

wdmso

11-25-2018, 07:37 PM

Sea Dangles is correct. What you characterize here is, as he says, lipstick on a pig. What created wealth in these cities is capitalism, not Progressive government. Capitalism creates wealth. Progressivism regulates and taxes it. Capitalism, if allowed to, creates wealth in any system of government. China is an example of what it can do even in a Communist country.

You want to claim a strong Progressive success in Chicago by citing wealth for which Progressivism is not responsible. Actually, the economic "success" you cite has created there one of the major things that Progressives cite as a failure of capitalism--income inequality. The disparity of wealth in Chicago, and in the state of California is far greater than it is in most of the non-Progressive smaller localities in the U.S. And the heavy taxes in Chicago don't spread the wealth near enough to fix that inequality.

And Chicago, as well as other large Progressive cities, suffer from another failure that Progressives try to legislate against, gun violence.

You want to have it both ways. On the one hand, income inequality is supposed to be this huge problem than can bring our country down, but the "booming economic growth, swelling corporate investment and development" in Chicago, as you put it are a really good thing when you want to defend the pig. And gun violence, which you've claimed to be a major scourge in this country is OK, or not so bad, apparently, if its not in the top 20.

Progressivism sucks more milk out of the big tit of capitalism than it can possibly manufacture or grow enough new tits to make up the difference. And the Progressive spawn of infinite genders, and of the social, cultural, and philosophical voids created by the destruction of basic absolutes leaves us with a weak thread of societal coherence which leads to more violence against each other, more hate and misunderstanding, more jealousy and revenge, more of the things that rip societies apart, not the things that hold it together. It's not income inequality or guns that are the threat to the wealth and well being of this country.

And conservatism is what in your world view? the country's saviour....

your inability to see beyond the propaganda you read and repeat here is amazing to watch

detbuch

11-25-2018, 09:02 PM

And conservatism is what in your world view?

Not a very clear one. "Conservatism" in this country is a mixed bag. That's why I usually put the word in quotes. Worldwide, it is even more mixed. Conservative in most West European countries would be leftist here. I try to have views narrowed to the effects on individuals and their freedoms.

Progressivism does have a clearer more homogenous world strain of political philosophy. And it is consistently a social Marxist, post modern world view. A view which makes centralized government the supreme commander and definer of human rights. The more world centralized, the better.

the country's saviour....

Depends on what is to be saved. If that is our founding form of constitutional government, then people who want to preserve the inalienable rights of that government would be the saviors.

your inability to see beyond the propaganda you read and repeat here is amazing to watch

Can you point out to me the propaganda that I read and repeated in the post to which you replied?

wdmso

11-26-2018, 05:11 AM

Can you point out to me the propaganda that I read and repeated in the post to which you replied?

Progressivism sucks more milk out of the big tit of capitalism than it can possibly manufacture or grow enough new tits to make up the difference. And the Progressive spawn of infinite genders, and of the social, cultural, and philosophical voids created by the destruction of basic absolutes leaves us with a weak thread of societal coherence which leads to more violence against each other, more hate and misunderstanding, more jealousy and revenge, more of the things that rip societies apart, not the things that hold it together. It's not income inequality or guns that are the threat to the wealth and well being of this country

or Progressivism does have a clearer more homogenous world strain of political philosophy. And it is consistently a social Marxist, post modern world view.

If that is our founding form of constitutional government, then people who want to preserve the inalienable rights of that government would be the saviors.

Then Trumps isn't your Man he is taking a wrecking ball to that idea

find it odd your views seem to suggest an absence of Conservatives as if there has never been any in office ... or while in office faced the same problems progressives have face resulting in little change but ending up with the same outcomes... that you blame on progressives ..

11-26-2018, 08:42 AM

Instead of defecting try and answer the original question:
Obviously it will be hard to get rid of all the guns by adding new laws to existing laws. Even if you banned all firearms it would take a generation to institute that policy.

It's just a feel good move to keep saying that Chicago is a very nice and highly rated city to visit but that doesn't help the innocent population on the city's south side who live with this violence day after day.

So the answer could/should be an action that changes the behavior and makeup of the populations in neighborhoods where most of the shootings occur. IMO this would be some sort of "police action" that would infringe on constitutional rights to privacy; such as stop and frisk and body/home/vehicle searches without a warrant. Allow racial profiling if statistics show that black on black crime is the main cause.

These are my opinions - we need answers not rhetoric.

wdmso

11-26-2018, 12:20 PM

The Dad Fisherman

11-26-2018, 12:37 PM

I have been clear it’s a gun volume issue . Have as many guns as you wish they should all be registered.

Every gun used in a murder in Chicago was a legally bought gun 1st
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once you register your gun, does that automatically protect it from being stolen? Do criminals even care?

it's not a gun volume issue, its a "scumbag with no regard for the law" issue.

detbuch

11-26-2018, 12:39 PM

Progressivism sucks more milk out of the big tit of capitalism than it can possibly manufacture or grow enough new tits to make up the difference. And the Progressive spawn of infinite genders, and of the social, cultural, and philosophical voids created by the destruction of basic absolutes leaves us with a weak thread of societal coherence which leads to more violence against each other, more hate and misunderstanding, more jealousy and revenge, more of the things that rip societies apart, not the things that hold it together. It's not income inequality or guns that are the threat to the wealth and well being of this country

or Progressivism does have a clearer more homogenous world strain of political philosophy. And it is consistently a social Marxist, post modern world view.

If that is our founding form of constitutional government, then people who want to preserve the inalienable rights of that government would be the saviors.

When I asked if you "Can you point out to me the propaganda that I read and repeated", your answer here is to merely repeat what I said. Are you claiming that I read and repeated my own propaganda? That is circular nonsense which indicates that you don't actually have any idea of what "propaganda" I read. Or even if such propaganda exists.

Everything I said is my opinion. It is not a repetition of what anybody else said. It is a culmination of everything I've experienced and read expressed in my own words.

Are you unwittingly admitting that every opinion you express is a result of the propaganda you've read and repeated and that you are projecting your own way of thinking on me?

Then Trumps isn't your Man he is taking a wrecking ball to that idea

Trump is much nearer to my "Man" than Hillary is. You do realize I was making a choice between what was available? And Trump is actually restoring some of "that idea." Hillary's wrecking ball would have been far more devastating.

find it odd your views seem to suggest an absence of Conservatives as if there has never been any in office ... or while in office faced the same problems progressives have face resulting in little change but ending up with the same outcomes... that you blame on progressives ..

I have said, SEVERAL TIMES, in the past that Republicans have become a form of Democrat lite. I don't know what you mean by "Conservatives." It seems that you equate "Conservative" with Republican. I have said, SEVERAL TIMES, that many Republicans are/were Progressive. I have explained what I mean by "Progressive." It is not a political party, it is a way of governing. It is anti-constitutional. It does not believe in unalienable rights, but that government creates all rights. It espouses the unrestricted power of centralized government. It has, over the past hundred years, eroded our constitutional order into an ever expanding control by the federal government.

We still have the remnants of the founding constitutional order, but we are close to erasing that. And Hillary supported by Progressives would have brought us even closer. That's why I said "If that is our founding form of constitutional government, then people who want to preserve the inalienable rights of that government would be the saviors."

And those are my own, well thought out, opinions expressed in my own words.

I apologize to the forum for digressing from the subject of this thread, but wdmso, once again, swerved into another discussion to which I felt it necessary to respond.

detbuch

11-26-2018, 12:44 PM

Once you register your gun, does that automatically protect it from being stolen? Do criminals even care?

it's not a gun volume issue, its a "scumbag with no regard for the law" issue.

Some folks do have that problem of distinguishing legal from illegal.

It would be really cool if guns could realize the difference.

Pete F.

11-26-2018, 01:19 PM

Interesting how people claiming to be Federalists want so vehemently an amendment that was a compromise between the Federalists and the anti Federalists.
Not until 2008 did the Supreme court rule that States did not have the right to restrict gun rights, much like the Supreme court ruled in 1973 on abortion.
I suppose both could be overturned.

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 01:41 PM

What do you think can be done to curtail the shooting in Chicago? This is not the America that illegals risk being sent back home for. What a disgrace this progressive run city has become.

i think it’s a superbly organized community, and that whoever helped organize it, should
run for president.

what Chicago needs, is the exact opposite of what liberalism forces upon it. What it needs, all it needs, is an embrace of the culture of traditional, old fashioned family values ( two parents raising kids, encouraging them to stay in school, working hard, making good long-term decisions, and god forbid, going to church on sumdays and listening, and i don’t mean Rev Wright’s church). What Chicago gets instead, is a mocking of those family values, a pat on the head, and a small welfare check. it’s not working. Is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 01:44 PM

I travel to several times each year, no worries here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the 500 murder victims a year, and their families, will be very relieved to know that you don’t see any problems there.

Spence says there’s nothing to see, so let’s move along.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 01:46 PM

Yup,one is like the ok corral. The other is hiring people to clean human feces off the sidewalks downtown.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are run by democrats, which means the kool aid drinkers can’t bring themselves to be honest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-26-2018, 02:35 PM

PaulS

11-26-2018, 02:38 PM

i think it’s a superbly organized community, and that whoever helped organize it, should
run for president.

what Chicago needs, is the exact opposite of what liberalism forces upon it. What it needs, all it needs, is an embrace of the culture of traditional, old fashioned family values ( two parents raising kids, encouraging them to stay in school, working hard, making good long-term decisions, and god forbid, going to church on sumdays and listening, and i don’t mean Rev Wright’s church). What Chicago gets instead, is a mocking of those family values, a pat on the head, and a small welfare check. it’s not working. Is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, those good old fashion conservative values - Tell the poor that you are on your own (that empathy thing - or should I say lack of empathy). Claim that any social services causes laziness and that the poor in the inner cities are poor bc of liberalism. "They need to lift themselves up by the boot straps".

PaulS

11-26-2018, 02:48 PM

Who ran Indianapolis for most of the past two decades and where does it stand on the list of dangerous cities?
Hint it's #2 and Chicago and SF are nowhere's near as dangerous. It must be the politicians fault, though and certainly a liberal one.

Not sure if that is true or not about Indy but Chicago fits the narrative so that is why it is always discussed. - Like how NC is always mentioned when best states to live are discussed - never mind that the conserv. states all lage in wages, GDP per capita, educ. and many other stats.

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 02:51 PM

yes, those good old fashion conservative values - Tell the poor that you are on your own (that empathy thing - or should I say lack of empathy). Claim that any social services causes laziness and that the poor in the inner cities are poor bc of liberalism. "They need to lift themselves up by the boot straps".

“tell the poor that you are on your own”.

please provide some evidence, that one of the pillars of conservatism, or if judeo/christian ethics, is to ignore the poor? or is this one of those situations where (1) i’m right, and (2) you can’t bear to admit it, so you lob a fabricated, baseless, stupid insult instead? we’ve discussed many times the study which annihilated the notion that liberals care more about the poor.

“claim that any social service causes laziness.”. it would
quite stupud to say that all social
service programs cause
laziness. it would
be quite thoughtless to deny that in some cases, it causes laziness. I certainly never said that all charity programs cause laziness. Seems like you are responding to something that no one has said.

Paul, is Chicago a city that’s been run by liberals for many years? Is it working? In my opinion, we’ve tried decades of liberalism in places like Chicago, and i think the people there deserve better, so i advicate for trying something different. is that as callous as you are desperately trying to make it out to be?

in the future, if you could respond to what i actually say, rather than responding to stupid jibberish that I’d never say,,our discussions will be more productive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 03:02 PM

Who ran Indianapolis for most of the past two decades and where does it stand on the list of dangerous cities?
Hint it's #2 and Chicago and SF are nowhere's near as dangerous. It must be the politicians fault, though and certainly a liberal one.
We already have the highest percentage of population imprisoned of any country in the world.
Perhaps public floggings and branding are in order or just give everyone a gun and let them shoot it out.
We are the country that is closest to that also, we have more than a gun per person, all we need to do is share.

who ran indianapolis? well from 1998-2000 it was a republican, then a democrat from 2000-2007, then a republican from 2007-2016, then a democrat since 2016. so it’s been pretty even, ten years for each side. i have no idea what policies have been implemented, i don’t know if it’s a left leaning city or right leaning. Can you fill
me in? But we all know Chicago is very very liberal. how’s it working? I answered your question directly, and exactly as you asked. any chance you can show me the same courtesy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

11-26-2018, 03:12 PM

“tell the poor that you are on your own”.

please provide some evidence, that one of the pillars of conservatism, or if judeo/christian ethics, is to ignore the poor?But that is the platform they constantly run on - cut taxes and then when the deficit balloons, cut social welfare programs and claim the poor are lazy. or is this one of those situations where (1) i’m right, and (2) you can’t bear to admit it, so you lob a fabricated, baseless, stupid insult instead? we’ve discussed many times the study which annihilated the notion that liberals care more about the poor. And we have constantly shown that the conservatives lack empathy and their budgets show that.

“claim that any social service causes laziness.”. it would
quite stupud to say that all social
service programs cause
laziness. it would
be quite thoughtless to deny that in some cases, it causes laziness.Yes, those poor in the inner cities lead great lives. Would you for 1 min. trade your life for theirs? I wouldn't and I hate getting up 5:23 every morning I go into the office. I certainly never said that all charity programs cause laziness. Seems like you are responding to something that no one has said.I hear if from my conservative friends quite a lot.

Paul, is Chicago a city that’s been run by liberals for many years? Is it working? Liberals of course. But you're taking what a small % of people are doing and conflating it to all. In my opinion, we’ve tried decades of liberalism in places like Chicago, and i think the people there deserve better, so i advicate for trying something different. is that as callous as you are desperately trying to make it out to be?

in the future, if you could respond to what i actually say, rather than responding to stupid jibberish that I’d never say,,our discussions will be more productive. When you are the owner of this site I'll post the way you want me to. Conservatives say those things I mentioned. You yourself have claimed that liberal policies has caused the poor to continue to be poor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at the per capital GDP (and many other stats). Conservative states lag behind (even with the greater natural resources they have - and the advantage of higher per capita government spending in those states.

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 03:19 PM

. It must be the politicians fault, though and certainly a liberal one.
.

if you are implying that I never criticize Republicans, you're not all that attentive. I do it all the time. I'm in favor of gay marriage, opposed to the death penalty, in favor of more gun control, in favor of more free healthcare for people born sick (free to them), and I think Trump is disgusting. Is that going too fast for you? Or do you understand that I'm not a blind ideologue?

I think that politicians usually don't cause or cure poverty. But they have an impact.

I believe that very, very few people are poor who (1) make good long-term decisions, and (2) who work hard. So I think politicians who are sane, should do everything they can, to encourage those two behaviors. I think there are plenty of bad people and stupid people on the right, but that being said, I think there's no question that the republican agenda does a better job of stressing those behaviors, than the liberal agenda.

Liberalism stresses the idea that if something feels good you should do it. And it relies heavily on the idea that nothing is anyone's fault. That everyone who fails, didn't screw themselves, but rather, was victimized by someone else, preferably by a white guy wearing a suit. And that it's "progress" to get as far away as possible, from 1950's family values. I don't think it's been a great cultural leap forward, and there's all kinds of evidence to support that. Not that the 1950s were a utopia (segregation and racism). But the higher percentage of intact, nuclear, traditional families, was a good thing in my opinion. And it's not necessarily worthy of a celebration, to get further and further away. Liberals can't get away from it fast enough.

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 03:28 PM

Look at the per capital GDP (and many other stats). Conservative states lag behind (even with the greater natural resources they have - and the advantage of higher per capita government spending in those states.

" that is the platform they constantly run on - cut taxes and then when the deficit balloons, cut social welfare programs "

First, who ran up more debt than the guy who was there from 2009-2016? Anyone? Second, conservatives want to cut waste, not vital social programs. Big difference.

"And we have constantly shown that the conservatives lack empathy "

Yet the one study, shows that conservatives donate more time, more money, to charity. So who is the "we" that has shown that conservatives lack empathy? The anti-abortion position is based on nothing but empathy. You're lobbing baseless, un-provable allegations.

"their budgets show that"

That's a good one. Here in CT where you live I believe, the democrat-controlled legislature last year, (1) signed a union deal guaranteeing raises, longevity bonuses, and no layoffs, and at the same time (2) closed 26 non profits. IS that indicative of the liberal monopoly on empathy you are desperately, desperately trying to establish? I'm not saying there aren't any conservatives who are greedy and callous, but the conservative platform isn't lacking in empathy the way you are trying to depict it. You can say it as many times as you want. I can say that I look like Justin Verlander and should be married to Kate Upton. That doesn't make it so.

"those poor in the inner cities lead great lives"

Can you go one single post, without responding to something that I never said? Not only did I never say they lead great lives, I said they deserve something better. Are you hearing voices? Or is your reading comprehension really that bad?

"When you are the owner of this site I'll post the way you want me to"

I didn't demand that you do anything. I made a request (that you respond to what I'm actually saying) . Many would say it's a reasonable request. But if you want to act as if I said that we should kill the poor and sell their stuff, obviously I can't stop you. BUu you're embarrassing yourself.

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 04:14 PM

Not sure if that is true or not about Indy but Chicago fits the narrative so that is why it is always discussed. - Like how NC is always mentioned when best states to live are discussed - never mind that the conserv. states all lage in wages, GDP per capita, educ. and many other stats.

True, conservatives focus on Chicago because it fits our narrative. But what you failed to mention (wonder why) is that liberals desperately avoid talking about it, because it doesn't fit their narrative.

As to NC and SC, yes, there are crappy places to live there, places I'd never want to raise kids - just like there are crappy places in CT where I'd never want to raise kids.

But please, Paul, tell me where I'm wrong with this statement...NC and SC have SOME CITIES with a great quality of life, which are relatively inexpensive - mainly suburbs of Charlotte. CT, by comparison, has exactly ZERO places to live which are great places to raise kids or retire, which are also cheap. True or false? Please tell me, where can I live in CT, which offers the quality of life of the Charlotte suburbs (places like Waxhaw, NC or Fort Mill SC), at the same cost? Please tell me, so I can move there.

Not all of NC and SC is great and cheap. But some places are. CT has precisely zero places that offer a comparable bang for the buck.

So here, you are the one twisting things for political expediency. I have never heard anyone say that all of NC and SC is an improvement over CT. But the suburbs of Charlotte are, I am saying this because CT is always near the bottom of the nation for population change, and the suburbs of Charlotte are growing like crazy. Same with Nashville.

And we all know that CT is going to get worse in the next 10 years as the debt comes due. Our projected deficits are big for the next 2 years. Tolls are coming, tax hikes are coming. For tolls, they are talking about 30-40 cents a mile during rush hour.

Pete F.

11-26-2018, 04:55 PM

if you are implying that I never criticize Republicans, you're not all that attentive. I do it all the time. I'm in favor of gay marriage, opposed to the death penalty, in favor of more gun control, in favor of more free healthcare for people born sick (free to them), and I think Trump is disgusting. Is that going too fast for you? Or do you understand that I'm not a blind ideologue?
My experience tells me that things people claim vehemently to be is close to what they are not. Perhaps you're the exception.

I think that politicians usually don't cause or cure poverty. But they have an impact.

I believe that very, very few people are poor who (1) make good long-term decisions, and (2) who work hard. So I think politicians who are sane, should do everything they can, to encourage those two behaviors. I think there are plenty of bad people and stupid people on the right, but that being said, I think there's no question that the republican agenda does a better job of stressing those behaviors, than the liberal agenda.
I think that many people who are poor are illiterate and have not even had good examples of how to succeed or know what success is. Most liberals and conservatives I know would agree with me. As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much we will never win. If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water, you will surely sink with the next wave. So after you sink a couple of times, you stay where the hand helps you. I blame that on politicians and most are guilty.

Liberalism stresses the idea that if something feels good you should do it. And it relies heavily on the idea that nothing is anyone's fault. That everyone who fails, didn't screw themselves, but rather, was victimized by someone else, preferably by a white guy wearing a suit. And that it's "progress" to get as far away as possible, from 1950's family values. I don't think it's been a great cultural leap forward, and there's all kinds of evidence to support that. Not that the 1950s were a utopia (segregation and racism). But the higher percentage of intact, nuclear, traditional families, was a good thing in my opinion. And it's not necessarily worthy of a celebration, to get further and further away. Liberals can't get away from it fast enough.

You've been watching too much right wing BS, that whole last paragraph is the equivalent of a liberal saying conservatives are Fascists.

Like this,
Conservatism stresses the idea that something that feels good must be bad. And it relies heavily on the idea that everything is someone else's fault. That everyone who fails is an idiot, morally bankrupt, inbred and likely a damn foreigner.
That nothing good has happened since the Beatles came across the ocean, and things were better when women stayed at home and didn't find out you had a girlfriend. We stayed married for the sake of the children. She needed a good smack. A little grab-ass is just boys being boys. We should bring back the three Martini lunch. Archie was right, those Liberals ruined everything. Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke Meathead

spence

11-26-2018, 05:20 PM

You've been watching too much right wing BS, that whole last paragraph is the equivalent of a liberal saying conservatives are Fascists.
Do you think Jim is going to just turn into a meme on day? I mean like actually turn into one.

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 06:43 PM

You've been watching too much right wing BS, that whole last paragraph is the equivalent of a liberal saying conservatives are Fascists.

Like this,
Conservatism stresses the idea that something that feels good must be bad. And it relies heavily on the idea that everything is someone else's fault. That everyone who fails is an idiot, morally bankrupt, inbred and likely a damn foreigner.
That nothing good has happened since the Beatles came across the ocean, and things were better when women stayed at home and didn't find out you had a girlfriend. We stayed married for the sake of the children. She needed a good smack. A little grab-ass is just boys being boys. We should bring back the three Martini lunch. Archie was right, those Liberals ruined everything. Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke Meathead

i don’t especially care how many liars you know. i’m pro gay marriage, and opposed
to the death penalty. Gay marriage causes me no harm, and i think that life is pretty sacred.

i agree many poor people had crappy parents, and that’s not their fault. So isn’t the solution to enact public policy that incentivizes
good parenting, rather than providing incentives for young girls to have kids and not get married? and shouldn’t public policy encourage hard work and good long-term decision making?

Conservatives do not say that if something feels good it must be bad. where the hell did you get that idea? boy i’d love to see you support that. Things are bad if they hurt you or others. Liberals
put too much emphasis on short term gratification ( celebrating casual sex, legalizing drugs), and
ignore the inconvenient long term effects.

I’ve never heard anyone say that anyone who fails, is an idiot.

You are really taking a cue from Paul, and responding to stupidity which no one has ever said. i said most poor people are poor because of making bad decisions, and i stand by that. some are just unlucky, some
don’t have the ability to rise out of poverty.

People who at least go to community college and don’t have kids until
they are married, are rarely poor.

“she needed a good
smack.”.

hilarious. what does it say about your positions, that you cannot defend them
against my simple statements? that instead of responding to what i actually said, that you are instead responding to nonsense that no one ever said?

when my beliefs are unable to withdtandnthe scrutiny of simple challenges, thats the day i get new beliefs. you’ll never see me dodge that way, i don’t have to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 06:45 PM

Do you think Jim is going to just turn into a meme on day? I mean like actually turn into one.

Maybe I’ll turn into a meme, on the same day that you display a speck of intellectual honesty.

“Gosh fellers, i went to
chicago once and i didn’t see anyone get murdered, so it can’t be all that bad.”

i can readily admit that the GOP tax cuts in KS were a flop. I’d
be a maniac to deny that. But you can’t admit that the liberals
have severely damaged Chicago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-26-2018, 08:34 PM

i don’t especially care how many liars you know. i’m pro gay marriage, and opposed
to the death penalty. Gay marriage causes me no harm, and i think that life is pretty sacred.

i agree many poor people had crappy parents, and that’s not their fault. So isn’t the solution to enact public policy that incentivizes
good parenting, rather than providing incentives for young girls to have kids and not get married? and shouldn’t public policy encourage hard work and good long-term decision making?

Show me a government policy that did or does that

Conservatives do not say that if something feels good it must be bad. where the hell did you get that idea? boy i’d love to see you support that. Things are bad if they hurt you or others. Liberals
put too much emphasis on short term gratification ( celebrating casual sex, legalizing drugs), and
ignore the inconvenient long term effects.

I’ve never heard anyone say that anyone who fails, is an idiot.

You are really taking a cue from Paul, and responding to stupidity which no one has ever said. i said most poor people are poor because of making bad decisions, and i stand by that. some are just unlucky, some
don’t have the ability to rise out of poverty.

People who at least go to community college and don’t have kids until
they are married, are rarely poor.

“she needed a good
smack.”.

hilarious. what does it say about your positions, that you cannot defend them
against my simple statements? that instead of responding to what i actually said, that you are instead responding to nonsense that no one ever said?

when my beliefs are unable to withdtandnthe scrutiny of simple challenges, thats the day i get new beliefs. you’ll never see me dodge that way, i don’t have to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit
What I said is no more true than the divisive BS you wrote
Do you honestly believe that all who disagree with you on some points are at a complete opposite position and that there is no common ground.
You might as well quit now because you will never find total agreement and why should you even pursue a solution
You sound like the idiot Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 10:59 PM

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit
What I said is no more true than the divisive BS you wrote
Do you honestly believe that all who disagree with you on some points are at a complete opposite position and that there is no common ground.
You might as well quit now because you will never find total agreement and why should you even pursue a solution
You sound like the idiot Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“show
me a government policy that did or doesnthat.”

Bill clinton kicked
millions of people off welfare. they went back to work. it got people to get off the dole
and get back to work. During the depression, many social programs
didn’t just send checks to people, we paid them
to work. this isn’t rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-26-2018, 11:01 PM

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit
What I said is no more true than the divisive BS you wrote
Do you honestly believe that all who disagree with you on some points are at a complete opposite position and that there is no common ground.
You might as well quit now because you will never find total agreement and why should you even pursue a solution
You sound like the idiot Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

show me the nuttiest thing i’ve said today. have fun. who says i expect total agreement? once again you are responding to
something i never said. you’re constantly making stuff up
and pretending i said them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-26-2018, 11:14 PM

“show
me a government policy that did or doesnthat.”

Bill clinton kicked
millions of people off welfare. they went back to work. it got people to get off the dole
and get back to work. During the depression, many social programs
didn’t just send checks to people, we paid them
to work. this isn’t rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So what you can find is programs done by Democrats 20 and 80 years ago and you claim that Republicans have the answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-26-2018, 11:22 PM

show me the nuttiest thing i’ve said today. have fun. who says i expect total agreement? once again you are responding to
something i never said. you’re constantly making stuff up
and pretending i said them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke Meathead
You need to finish reading before your head explodes
Remember now, you always get confused about this
liberal good
authoritarian bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 07:15 AM

So what you can find is programs done by Democrats 20 and 80 years ago and you claim that Republicans have the answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the answer is common sense, good values, and hard work. Do you disagree?

from where i sit, the conservative platform is more reflective of that notion, than the liberal platform ( the liberal platform being, gimme gimme gimme).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 07:16 AM

So what you can find is programs done by Democrats 20 and 80 years ago and you claim that Republicans have the answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you deny that what bill clinton ( and Newt Gingrich) did, worked?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-27-2018, 07:27 AM

Do you deny that what bill clinton ( and Newt Gingrich) did, worked?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 11:31 AM

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then why has the democratic
party completely turned its back on the principles underlying what Clinton did? Anyone who advocates for doing what Clinton did, would never ever ever get the democratic nomination for
any office. Today’s democratic party, advocates for the opposite of what Clinton and Gingrich did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-27-2018, 11:49 AM

then why has the democratic
party completely turned its back on the principles underlying what Clinton did? Anyone who advocates for doing what Clinton did, would never ever ever get the democratic nomination for
any office. Today’s democratic party, advocates for the opposite of what Clinton and Gingrich did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why.

I'll stick with what I said previously, you can go on beating dead horses.

As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much we will never win. If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water, you will surely sink with the next wave. So after you sink a couple of times, you stay where the hand helps you. I blame that on politicians and most are guilty.

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 12:48 PM

You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why.

I'll stick with what I said previously, you can go on beating dead horses.

As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much we will never win. If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water, you will surely sink with the next wave. So after you sink a couple of times, you stay where the hand helps you. I blame that on politicians and most are guilty.

"You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why."

In other words..."answering that question honestly would make my side look wrong, and I can't ever do that, so I refuse to answer..."

"As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much"

That's the liberal battle, not the conservative battle. Unlike liberals, conservatives realize that wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Bill Gates earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for you and I to scrounge for. Stop obsessing over the wealthy. It's so pointless. Would you or I be better off, if all the billionaires never existed? Or if they become poor tomorrow?

It's not fair that we have billionaires and poor people. But it's not sinister, either. Except for a few criminals, the rich did not become rich, by taking from the poor. They created wealth, they didn't steal it.

You know what happens when the rich get richer? Do you think they put the money in their mattresses or bury it in their yards? Or do they spend some, invest some, save some, pay taxes with some, and give some to charity? All of which, helps the economy.

The wealthy are not causing poverty. They just aren't. Do you really not see that? Seriously? If you want what they have, do what they did.

"If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water"

I disagree that's happening. But not all of us need to be carried all the way back to shore by someone else. Most of us, once above water, can get ourselves to shore. That's exactly why, when Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, they didn't all starve to death - they went to work. There is incredible opportunity to be middle class in this country. It's harder than it was 40 years ago, no question. But still within reach for most of us. For those who truly can't take care of themselves, I'm happy to pay taxes for well-run programs that help them.

Stop obsessing over the wealthy. It's a terrific liberal rallying cry ,that the 1% are to blame for everything. But it's demonstrably false bullsh*t. It doesn't even come close to making any sense.

Wealth isn't finite. It's just not. If it was, GDP wouldn't ever change.

Pete F.

11-27-2018, 01:37 PM

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 02:45 PM

Interesting to see what comes out when your head explodes.
You certainly can read a lot into a couple of sentences.
I understand the welfare trap.
We need to enable, not endow people and we need to make it work.
We haven't done it consistently and certainly not the Republicans, though you claim Gingrich did by hanging on Clinton's coattails.

If you think wealth distribution is not a problem in this country, maybe you should talk to a few billionaires. Bill Gates would be a good start.
You can read something he wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/bill-and-melinda-gates-no-its-not-fair-that-we-have-so-much-wealth.html

when i ask a question, yiybeither didge or accuse
me of being angry. i’m not the least bit angry, OK?

can you tell me in your own words, why it’s “a problem” if Bill Gates gets richer because Microsoft’s stick goes up? And if he thinks it’s so bad, why does he accept the stick options?

You are making zero sense. Bill Gates didn’t steal from anybody. if he burned all his money, the wealth gap would decrease, but who is better off?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 02:48 PM

Interesting to see what comes out when your head explodes.
You certainly can read a lot into a couple of sentences.
I understand the welfare trap.
We need to enable, not endow people and we need to make it work.
We haven't done it consistently and certainly not the Republicans, though you claim Gingrich did by hanging on Clinton's coattails.

If you think wealth distribution is not a problem in this country, maybe you should talk to a few billionaires. Bill Gates would be a good start.
You can read something he wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/bill-and-melinda-gates-no-its-not-fair-that-we-have-so-much-wealth.html

then i read the article, which you didn’t, either that or you didn’t understand it. Gates said the wealth gap isnt “fair”, and i agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s a problem.

Pete, in your words, what is the problem with his wealth? he has pledged to give away tens of billions of dollars. would
we be better off, if gates never made his fortune? Who would be better off, and how?

You are jealous of him, and feel entitled to what he has, but aren’t willing to do what he did to get it.

This is why one of the 10 commandments is not to covet your
neighbors goods.

Bill Gates’ wealth might not be fair. But it’s not problematic. How many thousands of upper middle class jobs are there at microsoft? how
many people will be helped when he gives his money away ( and he seems to be taking his time with that).

he created his wealth, he didn’t take it from anyone else. Do you agree with that, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-27-2018, 03:10 PM

detbuch

11-27-2018, 03:25 PM

the country has a gun volume issue... more cars more accidents more fish more caught more homes in wooded more houses on the coast areas more costly disasters More Guns more deaths by Guns its not the only reason its 1 of many I think

If it's a volume issue, then why do we want to increase the volume of people by allowing even more legal or illegal immigrants added to the already 11 to 30 million illegals already here.

Spence said: "Number [of gun deaths] is high because Chicago has a big population, when you compare the homicide rate to other US cities it doesn’t even make the top 20."

Replacing people with your above stated volume issues you get:
more people more accidents more people more fish caught more people more costly disasters on the coast areas More People more deaths by Guns or by other weapons . . .

Let's fix the volume issue--start with importing less people . . .

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 03:34 PM

Jim, I'm too old to worry about that. I just worry about what my kids will have to deal with. They all are gainfully employed, straight enough but I still worry about what they will have to deal with.
I'm not jealous of wealthy people, I'm worried about the concentration of wealth and what it's effect on our society will be. I've seen enough people with stupid money and it's effects to know it's not good.
Feel free to read what Warren Buffet said but I'm sure you still wont be able to say that there is a problem.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rich-people-us-too-much-money-warren-buffett-net-worth-america-second-richest-75-billion-a7812736.html

Pete, then we both agree that we worry what our kids will have to deal with. we have that
in common. and that’s something, hopefully.

I have 3 boys ages 12, 9, and 7. And my middle guy will be someone who might need a little help. i’m hoping i can give him everything he needs, but obviously i hope he outlives me by several decades, so he might need help after i’m gone. So i do know that worry, i really do.

I feel things are a lot harder than they were for my father. he bought our house when he was 26 years old, only paid 1.5 times what his annual salary was at that time, and sold the house 40 years later for 6x what he paid. I will never see anything like that. Hell, in january I’ll have ben in my house for 15 years, and i dont think it’s worth a dollar more than what i paid, plus what i put into it. Zero. That’s how it goes in CT.

If wealthy people become
more wealthy by creating wealth, not by taking it from someone else...then why should
we care? In all sincerity, can you address that? Why should i care if the Obamas become billionaires, which they probably will? how does that hurt me or my kids? I just don’t see it...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 03:36 PM

scottw

11-27-2018, 04:08 PM

I'm not jealous of wealthy people, I'm worried about the concentration of wealth and what it's effect on our society will be. I've seen enough people with stupid money and it's effects to know it's not good.

you sound jealous and this is stupid.....lot's of people with stupid money do really good things with their stupid money...

Pete F.

11-27-2018, 04:17 PM

if Mr Buffet feels his wealth is bad, why does he keep it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He's thought about it and made a decision
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021615/who-does-warren-buffett-plan-bequeath-his-estate.asp

Jim in CT

11-27-2018, 06:17 PM

He's thought about it and made a decision
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021615/who-does-warren-buffett-plan-bequeath-his-estate.asp

he announced that a long time ago. why wait? why not give it all away now, if it’s so immoral?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-27-2018, 07:31 PM

he announced that a long time ago. why wait? why not give it all away now, if it’s so immoral?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-28-2018, 05:54 AM

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete just wants an obama car to go with his obamacare and obama phone :)

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 09:28 AM

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You are the one who posted articles where gates said his wealth was unfair. Then why does he still cling to it? Same with Buffet.

You’ve been going on and on about how bad it is that some are wealthy while others are not. i’m just listening to you...

i’ll ask
for the third or fourth time, how would anyone be better off, if gates and buffet didn’t accumulate their wealth, but worked at minimum wage jobs instead? You have said wealth inequality is a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 10:14 AM

You are the one who posted articles where gates said his wealth was unfair. Then why does he still cling to it? Same with Buffet.

You’ve been going on and on about how bad it is that some are wealthy while others are not. i’m just listening to you...

i’ll ask
for the third or fourth time, how would anyone be better off, if gates and buffet didn’t accumulate their wealth, but worked at minimum wage jobs instead? You have said wealth inequality is a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Bill Gates didn't start MS, perhaps I wouldn't be wasting time here arguing with you.

spence

11-28-2018, 10:51 AM

You are the one who posted articles where gates said his wealth was unfair. Then why does he still cling to it? Same with Buffet.
Last time I check both Gates and Buffet had given away billions of dollars to charity.

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 11:02 AM

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-explains-whats-wrong-with-the-economic-system-that-made-him-billions-2018-01-04

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 11:10 AM

Last time I check both Gates and Buffet had given away billions of dollars to charity.

last time i checked, each was still worth tens of billions of dollars. If they think that degree of wealth is immoral, they could have given it away a long time ago. So it seems pretty phony for them to complain about how horrible their wealth is. They only have it, because they choose to keep it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 11:12 AM

If Bill Gates didn't start MS, perhaps I wouldn't be wasting time here arguing with you.

once again, i ask
an obvious question, you can’t answwr it seriously without making me look correct, so you lob a stupid insult. Notice a pattern here.

For the tenth time, if Buffet thinks his wealth is bad, why is he clinging to iit?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 11:37 AM

Here is part of what Warren Buffett said in a Time magazine article.
You think that saying Wealth inequality is an issue, makes it a personal moral choice. It's a societal moral choice which is obviously far too progressive for you, unlike Warren Buffett.
You think that with the US being in the top ten in GDP per capita, we cannot afford healthcare, education and infrastructure.
Now don't let the voices in your head misconstrue what I am saying as that I think uncontrolled spending will accomplish anything. We need a government that works for all the people, we don't have that.
We are getting left behind by the rest of the world inch by inch.

Let’s think again about 1930. Imagine someone then predicting that real per capita GDP would increase sixfold during my lifetime. My parents would have immediately dismissed such a gain as impossible. If somehow, though, they could have imagined it actually transpiring, they would concurrently have predicted something close to universal prosperity.

Instead, another invention of the ensuing decades, the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.

In 1776, America set off to unleash human potential by combining market economics, the rule of law and equality of opportunity. This foundation was an act of genius that in only 241 years converted our original villages and prairies into $96 trillion of wealth.

The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

In the years of growth that certainly lie ahead, I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

You can read the whole thing here:
http://time.com/5087360/warren-buffett-shares-the-secrets-to-wealth-in-america/

spence

11-28-2018, 12:08 PM

last time i checked, each was still worth tens of billions of dollars. If they think that degree of wealth is immoral, they could have given it away a long time ago. So it seems pretty phony for them to complain about how horrible their wealth is. They only have it, because they choose to keep it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I must have missed the part about both of them believing wealth is immoral...they just seem to really enjoy spreading it around.

The Dad Fisherman

11-28-2018, 12:22 PM

I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

It's always been there, for anybody who cares to work for it.

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 12:40 PM

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 12:44 PM

I must have missed the part about both of them believing wealth is immoral...they just seem to really enjoy spreading it around.

Then you weren't reading Pete's articles. They both said their wealth is unethical. Not so unethical, I notice, to motivate them to give it away.

You miss everything that doesn't serve your agenda, which is why you can never criticize it or disagree with it.

I agree they are generous. That's one of the upsides of the uber-wealthy. I keep asking what the downside is, and all I get, is insults and crickets chirping.

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 12:45 PM

Is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation, hurting anybody? If so, how?

One time, just one time, can you answer the question that I asked?
Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 12:45 PM

It's always been there, for anybody who cares to work for it.

Agreed. There aren't as many paths to get there, as there used to be. But the paths are still there.

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 12:54 PM

Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 12:55 PM

Then you weren't reading Pete's articles. They both said their wealth is unethical. Not so unethical, I notice, to motivate them to give it away.

Show me where in any article I linked, it says the accumulation of Wealth is unethical.
All of them do say that there are societal issues with Wealth distribution and power.
You claim there are none.

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 12:58 PM

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.
Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

The Dad Fisherman

11-28-2018, 01:39 PM

Agreed. There aren't as many paths to get there, as there used to be. But the paths are still there.

it all depends on what you want to define as a "Decent Life"

use to be a time when you lived a decent life if you had 3 square meals and a roof over your head. people were happy gathering together on a sunday afternoon for dinner.

now, it seems, that you need internet, cable TV, Iphones, 2 $50k auto's complete with entertainment systems, annual trips to Disney, and so on before you can call it a "Decent life"

Kids used to be happy with a crappy bike and they'd go outside all day and play. Now they need multiple $500 Gaming Systems, Dance lessons, Athletic camps, $200 sneakers, their own iPhone at 10, and they still sit around and bitch that they have nothing to do.

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 01:57 PM

it all depends on what you want to define as a "Decent Life"

use to be a time when you lived a decent life if you had 3 square meals and a roof over your head. people were happy gathering together on a sunday afternoon for dinner.

now, it seems, that you need internet, cable TV, Iphones, 2 $50k auto's complete with entertainment systems, annual trips to Disney, and so on before you can call it a "Decent life"

Kids used to be happy with a crappy bike and they'd go outside all day and play. Now they need multiple $500 Gaming Systems, Dance lessons, Athletic camps, $200 sneakers, their own iPhone at 10, and they still sit around and bitch that they have nothing to do.

Very good point. I guess I define it as exactly middle class. Used to be, you could leave your high school graduation, go to a local manufacturing plant, and be middle class. I think those opportunities are fewer and further between.

And I have come to believe, as I presume that you do, that scouting is a decent antidote to all that crap.

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 01:58 PM

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

You just can't ever answer a direct question, can you?

Did Warren Buffet's accumulation of wealth, cause anyone else to be poor?

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 02:00 PM

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

And if you don't believe that one person's poverty is caused by another person's wealth, then why should we give a frog's fat azz about income inequality? What's the harm in rich people getting richer?

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 02:01 PM

You just can't ever answer a direct question, can you?

Did Warren Buffet's accumulation of wealth, cause anyone else to be poor?
As a sole cause, likely not
Now tell me where I said poverty was wealthy peoples fault
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 02:10 PM

And if you don't believe that one person's poverty is caused by another person's wealth, then why should we give a frog's fat azz about income inequality? What's the harm in rich people getting richer?
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 02:25 PM

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

curves paints a different picture from WHAT? i’m not denying income inequality exists. I am denying that it hurts anyone.

as to where youbsaid inenperaons wealth causes another’s poverty....youvare goung on and on about the wealthy and about income inequality. If you don’t think that one persons wealth causes another’s poverty, why do you bring up the wealthy? what point are you trying to make?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

11-28-2018, 02:27 PM

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.
There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 02:38 PM

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

trickle down hasn’t worked, if by ‘worked’, you mean eliminated poverty. Has welfare ( trickle up) eliminated poverty? Have the most liberal places, like CT, eliminated poverty? Been to Hartford or Bridgeport lately?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 03:05 PM

detbuch

11-28-2018, 03:22 PM

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

That is not the real question. That is the real trick. You're either intentionally trying to mislead for political reasons, or you're just plain uninformed.

From Forbes:

"Our language is loaded with phrases that lead people into false beliefs and harmful actions, but the one I would nominate as the worst and most destructive of all is 'trickle-down economics.'
It was devised by Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack President Reagan’s economic policy combination of tax rate cuts and some relaxation of federal regulations. They needed a catchy, easy-to-remember zinger to fire at Reagan; a line that would keep their voting base angry."
The full article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/#69a611995891

The whole notion of "trickle down economics" is a myth intended to use the usual political trick of defining an opponent with a dishonest (a lie) characterization. The theory never existed.

From another article: https://www.nccivitas.org/2014/myth-trickle-economics/

"As economist Thomas Sowell noted in his book Basic Economics, 'Trickle down has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.' But 'no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories . . .Here the President [Obama] and like-minded progressive statists employ an avoidance tactic to evade confronting the actual arguments presented by those who advocate for lower tax rates and less government interference as ways to grow the economy. Such advocates clearly do not make their case by seeking a transfer of existing wealth to high-income earners and business owners (i.e. “give more to those who have the most”). Rather, they emphasize the creation of additional wealth and jobs when entrepreneurs are not hampered by heavy regulation and discouraged by steep taxes,' Sowell writes."

More to the point: "As almost any entrepreneur – big or small – can tell you, when a business investment is made it is the workers who get paid first. Profits and capital gains only come later. For instance, when a new restaurant opens up, construction workers and interior designers get paid for building or renovating the space. Companies make money providing the furnishings and kitchen equipment. The wait staff, cooks and cleaning crew receive regular paychecks for doing their work. Furthermore, the food and beverage suppliers likewise get paid. Only later, if the restaurant is successful, do the owners see a return on their investment.
Even hugely successful corporations can often take years to break even. For instance, Amazon began in 1995 but didn’t turn its first profit until six years later after sustaining billions in losses. All that time, its workers and suppliers kept collecting checks.
As Sowell put it, 'In short, the sequence of payments is directly opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a ‘trickle down’ theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.'”

So, the good policy is similar to what Trump did.

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 03:25 PM

curves paints a different picture from WHAT? i’m not denying income inequality exists. I am denying that it hurts anyone.

as to where youbsaid inenperaons wealth causes another’s poverty....youvare goung on and on about the wealthy and about income inequality. If you don’t think that one persons wealth causes another’s poverty, why do you bring up the wealthy? what point are you trying to make?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I know this is hard for you to understand as a staunch constitutionalist, but it hurts our society as a whole and inhibits our progress (another word conservatives hate as the root of progressive) for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority. This is the reason the Republican Party pushed for the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, which was enacted unanimously and why the Federal Trade Commission was started. It was a problem then and now is again.

detbuch

11-28-2018, 03:39 PM

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 03:48 PM

So if the two opposite viewpoints don't work, we should do nothing.

And once again, you are acting like I said something, which I never even came close to saying. I have never come close to saying "do nothing". Why do you do this so frequently?

So, what should we do? Well, at the moment, unemployment is very low, and black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment are at all time lows, I think. What got us here? A Republican president, many years of a Republican congress, and tax cuts.

So I say, let's stick with what worked.

If Hilary had won, and the liberals ran Congress, and their massive tax hikes resulted in this low unemployment, I would be honest enough to admit that it worked. I'm willing to bet everything I own, that you and Spence will never do the same.

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 04:00 PM

I know this is hard for you to understand as a staunch constitutionalist, but it hurts our society as a whole and inhibits our progress (another word conservatives hate as the root of progressive) for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority. This is the reason the Republican Party pushed for the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1890, which was enacted unanimously and why the Federal Trade Commission was started. It was a problem then and now is again.

"it hurts our society as a whole ...for wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority."

I completely agree that our nation would be better, if we had fewer poor people. I concede that whole-heartedly. Fair enough?

I see no connection, nor have you even tried to establish a connection, between the widening income inequality, and poverty.

Let's talk about how to help poor people become middle class, I'm all for that. I'll happily pay taxes to programs that are actually effective in this goal.

But please stop whining about the wealthy. They play just about no role in this. Not only do they not create poverty, they help reduce poverty by paying tons of taxes and giving so much to charity. There would be more poverty, not less, if Warren Buffet washed dishes instead of founded Berkshire Hathaway.

Stop demonizing the wealthy. It's stupid, it's dishonest, and it's intellectually lazy.

Even lack of money isn't the cause of most people's poverty, it's the symptom. The cause of poverty is usually bad decision-making, laziness, mental illness, or addiction. These are not things you make go away, by throwing money at them.

Of course, some people are poor because of bad luck or bad timing, and certainly they can permanently escape poverty with a little help, and we should give them that help, we have an obligation to do so in my opinion.

But one thing that liberals refuse to accept is this - you cannot eliminate poverty by giving money to poor people. If we coulda, we woulda, because we've given un-countable billions to poor people over the years.

We can and should try to eliminate poverty. None of what we need to do so, lies with a small number of billionaires. None. Zip. But liberals never, ever stop bitching about the 1%. Anything to divide us into a larger number of smaller groups to be pitted against one another - that's liberalism.

The Koch Brothers have been demonized by name on the floor of congress many times. For what? Have they ever been arrested or convicted of anything? How would you like it, if a US Senator stood in front of cameras, mentioned you by name, and told America that you were the enemy?

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 04:17 PM

And once again, you are acting like I said something, which I never even came close to saying. I have never come close to saying "do nothing". Why do you do this so frequently?

So, what should we do? Well, at the moment, unemployment is very low, and black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment are at all time lows, I think. What got us here? A Republican president, many years of a Republican congress, and tax cuts.

So I say, let's stick with what worked.

If Hilary had won, and the liberals ran Congress, and their massive tax hikes resulted in this low unemployment, I would be honest enough to admit that it worked. I'm willing to bet everything I own, that you and Spence will never do the same.

But what have the Republican President and Congress done for Hartford or Bridgeport? After many years something should have happened.

Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

As to black and hispanic unemployment, I thought a rising tide lifts all ships. Both those rates still have the same relationship to white unemployment that they did before trump, double. Nothing surprising or wonderful there.

Pete F.

11-28-2018, 04:25 PM

Jim in CT

11-28-2018, 05:10 PM

As Jim said "The Koch Brothers have been demonized by name on the floor of congress many times. For what? Have they ever been arrested or convicted of anything? How would you like it, if a US Senator stood in front of cameras, mentioned you by name, and told America that you were the enemy?"
How many people has the president you constantly acclaim demonized on television again and again, for doing their jobs.
I know you dont really like him
if you think i constantly praise trump and never criticize him, you are hopeless, too stupid to try and talk to. it’s disgusting what he said
about the media? Fair enough? Now what do you have to say, about democrats who call out the koch brothers by name?

as to your question about blacks in hartford...local impact is far greater than federal impact. Your fellow
liberals in CT have seen to it that blacks in hartford never get anywhere, they have crippled those people
and made them addicted to liberal welfare.

i’m trying to talk to you like an adult pete. But if you keep fishing my questions, and you keep insisting i’m a rabid trump supporter, we should stop trying. is your reading really that bad, or are you that dishonest? i see no third option.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-28-2018, 08:51 PM

i’m trying to talk to you like an adult pete.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's your problem :wave:

Pete F.

11-29-2018, 12:00 AM

if you think i constantly praise trump and never criticize him, you are hopeless, too stupid to try and talk to. it’s disgusting what he said
about the media? Fair enough? Now what do you have to say, about democrats who call out the koch brothers by name?

as to your question about blacks in hartford...local impact is far greater than federal impact. Your fellow
liberals in CT have seen to it that blacks in hartford never get anywhere, they have crippled those people
and made them addicted to liberal welfare.

i’m trying to talk to you like an adult pete. But if you keep fishing my questions, and you keep insisting i’m a rabid trump supporter, we should stop trying. is your reading really that bad, or are you that dishonest? i see no third option.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Kind of nasty isn’t it, when someone gets demonized for their political actions. Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling.
Tacit approval doesn’t win you any points in my book.
Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint.
What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time.
You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?
Thinking that it’s about poverty is missing the point. The middle class has been shrinking for the past 30 years.
That’s not good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-29-2018, 07:30 AM

Kind of nasty isn’t it, when someone gets demonized for their political actions. Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling.
Tacit approval doesn’t win you any points in my book.
Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint.
What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time.
You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?
Thinking that it’s about poverty is missing the point. The middle class has been shrinking for the past 30 years.
That’s not good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling."

You constantly dodge my questions, you constantly claim that I'm a blind Trump supporter, and you constantly claim that I said things, which I would never ever say. I've pointed that stuff out to you 100 times, and you keep doing it. I don't know how to respond.

"Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint."

OK. Let's just stick to this. So you'd rather have a sweet person as POTUS, but with bad results? Is that what you're saying?

Just once, JUST THIS ONE TIME, can you please answer that question exactly as I asked it?

"What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time"

You might be right. But why did the GOP pick up Senate seats? Trump is one guy. He's not the whole party.

"You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?"

Not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying I didn't care about unemployment when Obama was POTUS, you are elying again. I've said 1,000 times that Obama gets good marks for his impact on unemployment and the stock market. So does Trump. SO please tell me what I "missed"?

Pete' let's see who is the blind partisan denier, me or you...I gave Obama credit for helping unemployment under his watch. Can you do the same with Trump? What do you have to say, about unemployment under Trump? I am curious to see how you answer that.

Sea Dangles

11-29-2018, 07:56 AM

He will not answer because it does not suit his agenda. To Pete this is not about what is right or wrong,he would rather bash a party or person. Obviously he has no point other than he dislikes Trump. He will neither praise,give credit nor acknowledge that there has been even one success in this presidency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-29-2018, 08:18 AM

that's your problem :wave:

i have no argument against that. None.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-29-2018, 12:38 PM

"Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling."

You constantly dodge my questions, you constantly claim that I'm a blind Trump supporter, and you constantly claim that I said things, which I would never ever say. I've pointed that stuff out to you 100 times, and you keep doing it. I don't know how to respond.

"Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint."

OK. Let's just stick to this. So you'd rather have a sweet person as POTUS, but with bad results? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely not, but that does not mean the bull#^&#^&#^&#^& Trump pulls and has been allowed to by the Trumplicans in Congress is acceptable to me.

Just once, JUST THIS ONE TIME, can you please answer that question exactly as I asked it?

"What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time"

You might be right. But why did the GOP pick up Senate seats? Trump is one guy. He's not the whole party.
Trump picked up Senate seats in very red states and by lower margins than he was elected by, not a great thing going into 2020.

"You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?"

Not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying I didn't care about unemployment when Obama was POTUS, you are elying again. I've said 1,000 times that Obama gets good marks for his impact on unemployment and the stock market. So does Trump. SO please tell me what I "missed"?

Pete' let's see who is the blind partisan denier, me or you...I gave Obama credit for helping unemployment under his watch. Can you do the same with Trump? What do you have to say, about unemployment under Trump? I am curious to see how you answer that.
Here's what I was saying there, you seem to have skimmed over it the first time.
Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

https://youtu.be/YVfNFJ9mUiE

Jim in CT

11-29-2018, 03:07 PM

Here's what I was saying there, you seem to have skimmed over it the first time.
Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

https://youtu.be/YVfNFJ9mUiE

you say he only picked up senate seats in very red states. if they were very red states, why did they elect democrat senators in 2012? you have to give it SOME thought, Pete.

I constantly have Obama
credit for what he did with unemployment. Trumpmis also doing good there. i’m not that kind of hypocrit
who refused to give onama credit but give trump credit. you try to paint me that way, but you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

11-29-2018, 03:52 PM

you say he only picked up senate seats in very red states. if they were very red states, why did they elect democrat senators in 2012? you have to give it SOME thought, Pete.

I constantly have Obama
credit for what he did with unemployment. Trumpmis also doing good there. i’m not that kind of hypocrit
who refused to give onama credit but give trump credit. you try to paint me that way, but you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
as I said "and by lower margins than he was elected by, not a great thing going into 2020"

How has the unemployment data collection or analysis changed since Trump was elected?
If you do the analysis the way Trump claimed prior to election that it should be done, how do his actual employment numbers come out.