Even i thought his brain was at least better than this.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-ripped-for-tweeting-his-build-back-better-plan-costs-zero-dollars

Yet the million times Republicans said the tax cuts would pay for themselves...

Yet the million times Republicans said the tax cuts would pay for themselves...

and every time, you criticize them. but it’s only a problem for you, when republicans do it.

when that’s the best that even you can do, we know Biden made a big, big mistake. Not even you can spin your way out of it.

tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, they can have some stimulative effect ( like any price cut) but not to the extent of paying for themselves. they need to be offset with spending cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the same thing the Right has been saying since Reagan, cut taxes and things will miraculously get better, churches will do it and rising tides......but it hasn't happened on any front compared to the rest of the developed world.

There is a real payback for investment in social infrastructure and here is a look at one part of that multifaceted investment.

For decades, U.S. politicians on the right have resisted calls for income redistribution and universal insurance under the theory that inequality was a fair price to pay for freedom. But now we know that the price of inequality is paid in early death—for Americans of all races, ages, and income levels. With or without a pandemic, when it comes to keeping Americans alive, we really are all in this together.

Before the 1990s, average life expectancy in the U.S. was not much different than it was in Germany, the United Kingdom, or France. But since the 1990s, American life spans started falling significantly behind those in similarly wealthy European countries.

According to a new working paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Americans now die earlier than their European counterparts, no matter what age you’re looking at. Compared with Europeans, American babies are more likely to die before they turn 5, American teens are more likely to die before they turn 20, and American adults are more likely to die before they turn 65. At every age, living in the United States carries a higher risk of mortality. This is America’s unsung death penalty, and it adds up. Average life expectancy surged above 80 years old in just about every Western European country in the 2010s, including Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, the U.K., Denmark, and Switzerland. In the U.S., by contrast, the average life span has never exceeded 79—and now it’s just taken a historic tumble.

Why is the U.S. so much worse than other developed countries at performing the most basic function of civilization: keeping people alive?

“Europe has better life outcomes than the United States across the board, for white and Black people, in high-poverty areas and low-poverty areas,” Hannes Schwandt, a Northwestern University professor who co-wrote the paper, told me. “It’s important that we collect this data, so that people can ask the right questions, but the data alone does not tell us what the cause of this longevity gap is.”

Finding a straightforward explanation is hard, because there are so many differences between life in the U.S. and Europe. Americans are more likely to kill one another with guns, in large part because Americans have more guns than residents of other countries do. Americans die more from car accidents, not because our fatality rate per mile driven is unusually high but because we simply drive so much more than people in other countries. Americans also have higher rates of death from infectious disease and pregnancy complications. But what has that got to do with guns, or commuting?

By collecting data on American life spans by ethnicity and by income at the county level—and by comparing them with those of European countries, locality by locality—Schwandt and the other researchers made three important findings.

First, Europe’s mortality rates are shockingly similar between rich and poor communities. Residents of the poorest parts of France live about as long as people in the rich areas around Paris do. “Health improvements among infants, children, and youth have been disseminated within European countries in a way that includes even the poorest areas,” the paper’s authors write.

But in the U.S., which has the highest poverty and inequality of just about any country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, where you live is much more likely to determine when you’ll die. Infants in the U.S. are considerably more likely to die in the poorest counties than in the richest counties, and this is true for both Black and white babies. Black teenagers in the poorest U.S. areas are roughly twice as likely to die before they turn 20, compared with those in the richest U.S. counties. In Europe, by contrast, the mortality rate for teenagers in the richest and poorest areas is exactly the same—12 deaths per 100,000. In America, the problem is not just that poverty is higher; it’s that the effect of poverty on longevity is greater too.

Second, even rich Europeans are outliving rich Americans. “There is an American view that egalitarian societies have more equality, but it’s all one big mediocre middle, whereas the best outcomes in the U.S. are the best outcomes in the world,” Schwandt said. But this just doesn’t seem to be the case for longevity. White Americans living in the richest 5 percent of counties still die earlier than Europeans in similarly low-poverty areas; life spans for Black Americans were shorter still. (The study did not examine other American racial groups.) “It says something negative about the overall health system of the United States that even after we grouped counties by poverty and looked at the richest 10th percentile, and even the richest fifth percentile, we still saw this longevity gap between Americans and Europeans,” he added. In fact, Europeans in extremely impoverished areas seem to live longer than Black or white Americans in the richest 10 percent of counties.

Third, Americans have a lot to learn about a surprising success story in U.S. longevity. In the three decades before COVID-19, average life spans for Black Americans surged, in rich and poor areas and across all ages. As a result, the Black-white life-expectancy gap decreased by almost half, from seven years to 3.6 years. “This is a really important story that we ought to move to the forefront of public debate,” Schwandt said. “What happened here? And how do we continue this improvement and learn from it?”

One explanation begins with science and technology. Researchers found that nothing played bigger roles in reducing mortality than improvements in treating cardiovascular disease and cancer. New drugs and therapies for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and various treatable cancers are adding years or decades to the lives of millions of Americans of all ethnicities.

Policy also plays a starring role. Schwandt credits the Medicaid expansion in the 1990s, which covered pregnant women and children and likely improved Black Americans’ access to medical treatments. He cites the expansion of the earned-income tax credit and other financial assistance, which have gradually reduced poverty. He also points to reductions in air pollution. “Black Americans have been more likely than white Americans to live in more-polluted areas,” he said. But air pollution has declined more than 70 percent since the 1970s, according to the EPA, and most of that decline happened during the 30-year period of this mortality research.

Other factors that have reduced the Black-white life-expectancy gap include the increase in deaths of despair, which disproportionately kill white Americans, and—up until 2018—a decline in homicides, which disproportionately kill Black Americans. (The recent rise in homicides, along with the disproportionate number of nonwhite Americans who have died of COVID-19, will likely reduce Black life spans.)

Even then, Black infants in high-poverty U.S. counties are three times more likely to die before the age of 5 than white infants in low-poverty counties. But Schwandt insists that highlighting our progress is important in helping us solve the larger American death problem. “We are wired to care more about bad news than about good news,” he said. “When life expectancy rises slightly, nobody cares. But when life expectancy declines, suddenly we’re up in arms. I think that’s a tragedy, because to improve the health and well-being of our populations, and especially of our disadvantaged populations, we have to give attention to positive achievements so that we can learn from them.”

We’re a long way from a complete understanding of the American mortality penalty. But these three facts—the superior outcomes of European countries with lower poverty and universal insurance, the equality of European life spans between rich and poor areas, and the decline of the Black-white longevity gap in America coinciding with greater insurance protection and anti-poverty spending—all point to the same conclusion: Our lives and our life spans are more interconnected than you might think.

pete, your side opposes school choice ( forcing generations of blacks to live in modern day plantations we call cities), so spare us the BS that you want to eliminate income inequality. How are the bluest of states - CT, CA, NY - doing on income inequality? Not so good. The last thing the left wants is to end poverty, because if they all escaped poverty, many would
no longer need to view democrat.

Democrats have done a masterful
job over the last few decades of giving poor blacks enough to postpone death, but never ever enough to get ahead.

You can’t end poverty by spending money. 50 years of empirical results show us this. you end poverty by giving people what the tools they need to get ahead. strong families, dedicated parents, good work ethic, good schools ( not measured by how much teachers make, but by how effective they are at teaching and inspiring),

Not rocket science. But beyond the grasp of the left. The left needs, and has cunningly cultivated, a permanent underclass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As we know reading comprehension is not your strong point.

The wealthy and powerful over the past decades have systematically turned our political system into a machine that redistributed our money into their pockets, all while enacting cruel austerity and convincing us government could never possibly make our lives better.

Who owns the formerly small businesses and banks?

It doesn’t have to be like this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As we know reading comprehension is not your strong point.

The wealthy and powerful over the past decades have systematically turned our political system into a machine that redistributed our money into their pockets, all while enacting cruel austerity and convincing us government could never possibly make our lives better.

Who owns the formerly small businesses and banks?

It doesn’t have to be like this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, when the economy grows, that helps everyone participating in the economy. But it helps the wealthy more, because they have more money to invest.

I own Apple, but not as much as Tim Cook. When Apple goes up by 20%, my shares and his shares improve by the same amount, but he has a million times
more, so he is helped
more. He gets richer relative to me, the income inequality has increased.

And i ask you, so the f—k what? How can you stop that income inequality, and why on earth would you want to stop it?

You want to pass a law that says once your net worth is $25 million, you have to put all your money in a mattress and stop working?

Follow this if you can…wealth is not finite,?it’s not like a pizza. If Oprah earns another million today, that does t mean there’s a million less for you and i to scrounge for.

The existence of wealthy people
is a good thing. They pay a ton of taxes, they spend a lot, they invest a lot, they give a lot to charity. All of which eases the burden on the rest of us.

Democrats never tire of creating false monsters, and naturally the only way to deal with those monsters, is to give democrats more power. The solution to every single problem, is to give democrats more power.

I suggest you’d benefit mightily from taking an adult education course in economics.

Do you know which party Wall Street now gives most of its political
donations to? And the Big Tech behemoths?

In any event, this was all a desperate attempt by you to distract away from
the fact that. idea said something incredibly stupid and dishonest. You can’t just concede that, you aren’t capable of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You miss the point
Money in politics has made it more advantageous to be a large corporation than a small business and the larger businesses have and are using their financial power politically to make small business near impossible.
Small business was dependent on local customers, local services etc.
They also supported community organizations from volunteer fire departments to sports.
How many local banks are there?
Local anything?

But it’s “liberals” fault and if you think in another generation home ownership will be the American dream you’re fooling yourself

But it’s ok you got a boat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You miss the point
Money in politics has made it more advantageous to be a large corporation than a small business and the larger businesses have and are using their financial power politically to make small business near impossible.
Small business was dependent on local customers, local services etc.
They also supported community organizations from volunteer fire departments to sports.
How many local banks are there?
Local anything?

But it’s “liberals” fault and if you think in another generation home ownership will be the American dream you’re fooling yourself

But it’s ok you got a boat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreed that massive corporations have too much power. I’d never say that was liberals fault, i’m not sure it’s anyone’s “fault”. People
like low prices more than they like supporting mom and pops.

Not sure what that has to do with Biden claiming his spending bill is free.

oh i have no doubt home
ownership will be more elusive ( not for my kids) and much is that is the fault of liberalism. states with the highest real estate prices, are they red states or blue states? liberalism isn’t conducive to middle class. Liberalism pushes people to either extreme. I’ve lived in CT my entire life, i know of what i speak.

No boat at present, 10 years out probably, when 3 college tuitions are funded then something along the lines of a 25 parker is on my horizon. worked my butt off at a job i don’t especially like for a few decades. the end is in sight thanks to this nice oil rebound.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People keep trying to frame the current legislative dysfunction as if Manchin and Sinema are budget-hawks, which is nonsense.

This is about the wealthy maintaining a stranglehold on government by buying and selling representatives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim where the outrage over the GOP refusing to raise the debt ceiling… Senate Republicans blocked a measure to avert a federal default and fund the government. All 50 GOP senators voted against the House-approved legislation that funds the government through December 3 and suspends the debt ceiling until the end of next year,

Our have fallen in step with mitchs lie it’s about blocking the 3.5 trillion … dem spending?

When it’s clear we need to raise the ceiling for what TRUMP spent to include his Tax cut .. and you have the nerve to call other partisans hacks …

So one again Republicans are willing to tank the government the markets and the world economy so they can have something to blame the on the dems in the mid terms because their bases priorities are owning the libs .. while they take the hit also their all sheep who think there Lions. Who party lies constantly and Their leader Trump is still lying about the election and the lengths they went to try to overturn it…. But But Biden said it cost Zero I guess hyperbole is dead unless it’s spoke by Republican like Mitch just recently earlier this month it was a necessary step because "America must never default.".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The top-line figure is $3.5 trillion. That's a package of investments that could bring $2 trillion in new revenue and savings, yielding net cost of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Annualized, that amount is less than three Pentagon contractors got last year.
And remember, we are out of Afghanistan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mitch is a partisan hack, when they had the power and the debt ceiling needed raising no problem. The debt ceiling needs to go up to pay for things this country (Republicans included) has already bought or committed to funding. Manchin and Sinema are also political hacks just positioning themselves to appear to be the moderates in the party, which is ironic since the plan is being proposed by a moderate president.

Mitch is a partisan hack, when they had the power and the debt ceiling needed raising no problem. The debt ceiling needs to go up to pay for things this country (Republicans included) has already bought or committed to funding. Manchin and Sinema are also political hacks just positioning themselves to appear to be the moderates in the party, which is ironic since the plan is being proposed by a moderate president.

so mitch is a partisan hack, manchin and sinema are hacks....and biden is just a moderate great guy trying to to the right stuff but being thwarted by hacks from every direction....

some great drugs you must be doing:spin:

I wouldn't call Mitch a hack, he's got a PhD is being a hypocritical a$$hole.

I wouldn't call Mitch a hack, he's got a PhD is being a hypocritical a$$hole.

I don't like him either...wish he was gone a long time ago...along with biden

so mitch is a partisan hack, manchin and sinema are hacks....and biden is just a moderate great guy trying to to the right stuff but being thwarted by hacks from every direction....

some great drugs you must be doing:spin:

If you think Mitch gives a rats arse about the Americans from the middle class your kidding yourself, he is all about holding on to the power at all costs. Never implied he is stupid, far from it, but everything he has done since Biden took office is about making him and his administration look bad and winning back the power, term limits are needed to get both parties working for all Americans and not their party or their donors.

If you think Mitch gives a rats arse about the Americans from the middle class your kidding yourself,

.

when did I say he does?.....you have this odd habit of creating arguments that don't exist and then arguing with yourself as though someone else has disagreed with you

Never implied he is stupid, far from it,



there you go again...I never implied that you implied he is stupid

everything he has done since Biden took office is about making him and his administration look bad and winning back the power



this is shocking and probably never done by the other side:bl:

term limits are needed



this is original....

Scott what rained in bored, snarky to the rescue.

so mitch is a partisan hack, manchin and sinema are hacks....and biden is just a moderate great guy trying to to the right stuff but being thwarted by hacks from every direction....

some great drugs you must be doing:spin:

I don't like him either...wish he was gone a long time ago...along with biden

when did I say he does?.....you have this odd habit of creating arguments that don't exist and then arguing with yourself as though someone else has disagreed with you

there you go again...I never implied that you implied he is stupid

this is shocking and probably never done by the other side:bl:

this is original....

It is said that this worked to calm down Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mlllRdIfqw

there you go again...I never implied that you implied he is stupid

when they can’t respond to what you actually said ( a position they find themselves in routinely), they respond to something that you never came close to saying. A classic liberal tactic.

And Biden is a moderate. That’s a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim where the outrage over the GOP refusing to raise the debt ceiling… Senate Republicans blocked a measure to avert a federal default and fund the government. All 50 GOP senators voted against the House-approved legislation that funds the government through December 3 and suspends the debt ceiling until the end of next year,

Our have fallen in step with mitchs lie it’s about blocking the 3.5 trillion … dem spending?

When it’s clear we need to raise the ceiling for what TRUMP spent to include his Tax cut .. and you have the nerve to call other partisans hacks …

So one again Republicans are willing to tank the government the markets and the world economy so they can have something to blame the on the dems in the mid terms because their bases priorities are owning the libs .. while they take the hit also their all sheep who think there Lions. Who party lies constantly and Their leader Trump is still lying about the election and the lengths they went to try to overturn it…. But But Biden said it cost Zero I guess hyperbole is dead unless it’s spoke by Republican like Mitch just recently earlier this month it was a necessary step because "America must never default.".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here you go - it’s obviously hypocritical for the gop to only care about debt when the president is a democrat. it’s pure partisan bullsh*t.

its also the same exact thing your side does whenever a republican is president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People keep trying to frame the current legislative dysfunction as if Manchin and Sinema are budget-hawks, which is nonsense.

This is about the wealthy maintaining a stranglehold on government by buying and selling representatives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no it’s not. it’s about two democrat senators who (1) want to remain senators, and (2) know that they represent purple states, not blue
states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People keep trying to frame the current legislative dysfunction as if Manchin and Sinema are budget-hawks, which is nonsense.

This is about the wealthy maintaining a stranglehold on government by buying and selling representatives.


There is no strangling. Politicians don't have to take the money. They are not forced to take the money. They are not being strangled if they don't take the money. They are corrupt. They care more about themselves and their political and financial future than about you or the American People.

Whatever metaphorical strangling is going on, it is mutual. If big money interests want to maintain their advantage, they have to depend on big government to create the regulatory environment necessary to enable that advantage. If they want that advantage, they have to pay the political Mafia to get it and keep it.

In a so called Democracy, the government should have a symbiotic relationship with "the people." Not with special interests who buy elected officials and who depend on their corruption. Which is one of the reasons democracies basically fail in living up to what "democracy" is for.

And this system of a political mafia feeding off of the big money that it makes possible and which fills its greedy pockets exists on all sides of the political isle. Which is why some consider the U.S. government to be a fascistic oligarchy.

Right now the big money goes more to the Dems. Other times, to the Repubs. I suspect it goes on as well in Western Europe which you think so highly of.

These various trillions of dollars spending bills are full of bull$hit that goes to special interests in the name of "values." As Pelosi said, "let’s not talk about numbers and dollars. Let’s talk about values.” Yeah, well it doesn't take economic and political geniuses to see whose values, especially cash values, are being realized. Like the series of so called infrastructure bills in the past 10 years that had more ​BS pork than infrastructure. Everybody knows this is happening.

But it's not going to stop until some crisis forces it. I don't know if Mitch's ploy is purely political or what, but I would love to see it happen. I would love to see the idiotic, destructive wasting and overspending of the people's money come to a screeching halt. We've been forced into a year of social and financial austerity because of the pandemic, with more to come. If that can defeat the virus, we can get through the catastrophe of a well deserved government default, and we can, at least for another while, defeat government fiscal irresponsibility

Let’s not overcomplicate this:

$7.8 Trillion of debt added during the Trump administration.

Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations.

And now they’re refusing to pay for it.

It’s really that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Top Five Debt Contributors by Percentage

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945): President Roosevelt had the largest percentage increase to the debt. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a nearly 1,050% increase from the $22.5 billion debt level left by President Herbert Hoover. The Great Depression and the New Deal contributed to FDR's yearly deficits, but the biggest cost was World War II: It added $186.3 billion to the debt between 1942 and 1945.4


Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921): President Wilson was the second-largest contributor to the debt, percentage-wise. He added $21 billion, which was a 724% increase over the $2.9 billion debt of his predecessor. World War I contributed to the deficits that raised the national debt.4

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): President Reagan increased the debt by $1.85 trillion, or by 186%. Reagan's brand of supply-side economics didn't grow the economy enough to offset the lost revenue from its tax cuts. Reagan also increased the defense budget by 35%.5

George W. Bush (2001-2009): President Bush added $6.1 trillion, or a 101% increase, putting him in fourth. Bush launched the War on Terror in response to the 9/11 attacks, which led to multi-trillion-dollar spending on the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Bush also dealt with the 2001 recession and the 2008 financial crisis.6

Barack Obama (2009-2017): Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise ($8.6 trillion) but was fifth in terms of percentage: 74%. Obama fought the Great Recession with an $831 billion economic stimulus package and added $858 billion through tax cuts.


10th place trump


I think Biden wants to be #1 :laugha:

Let’s not overcomplicate this:

$7.8 Trillion of debt added during the Trump administration.

Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations.

And now they’re refusing to pay for it.

It’s really that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No what about changes these facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

according to Forbes there are 724 billionaires in the US another source says 696....

we should just take a billion form each of them and then we could run the government for how long? at 6.7 trillion/year

No what about changes these facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete how come i got a nice tax cut? I’m neither a billionaire nor a corporation?

When you have to resort to blatant lies to defend your beliefs, doesn’t that suggest you have flimsy beliefs?

They doubled the standard deduction. Do you know what that means? Billionaires don’t claim the standard deduction.

Again, you’d really benefit from a basic course in economics/accounting, preferably a course for which the textbook isn’t Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

according to Forbes there are 724 billionaires in the US another source says 696....

we should just take a billion form each of them and then we could run the government for how long? at 6.7 trillion/year

that simple math exercise is literally what made me change from being a registered democrat to a registered republican when i was in my early 20s. It essentially proves irrefutably that the entire concept of liberal economics ( all we need to do is tax the rich a bit more) is nonsense.

I’m not saying the tax code can’t be made more fair. But liberals act as if the marginal rate on zillionaires is the only thing stopping us from pure utopia, when in reality (. it where liberals like to operate) the impact is practically a rounding error.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s not overcomplicate this:

$7.8 Trillion of debt added during the Trump administration.

Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations.

And now they’re refusing to pay for it.

It’s really that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are the numbers wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are the numbers wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re 100% wrong when you say the tax cut only helped billionaires and corporations. it’s a demonstrable, flat-out lie.

You are 100% correct that republicans only care about the dangers of debt when a democrat is in the white house. 100% correct. What you left out, is that both sides do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are the numbers wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

borrowing money to pay debt creates a larger debt. This nonsense has to stop.

U.S spent 5.8 trillion in Afghanistan & trillions in Iraq. Past time to invest in Americans-infrastructure, technology, child care, education, energy,health, drinkable water etc. Returns will abound in a prospering nation.The rich can pay taxes, they agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

U.S spent 5.8 trillion in Afghanistan & trillions in Iraq. Past time to invest in Americans-infrastructure, technology, child care, education, energy,health, drinkable water etc. Returns will abound in a prospering nation.The rich can pay taxes, they agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why is Biden saying it will cost $0? Is he being truthful, or is he lying?

Is there any chance at all, you can answer that question, as I asked it?

We don’t invest in education? Hartford, CT spends approximately $20,000 annually, per student, and the schools suck. My sons catholic middle school costs $5,500 a year and it’s awesome.

Liberals need to get past the mindset that spending more automatically means higher quality. There’s lots of data to suggest that’s totally wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why is Biden saying it will cost $0? Is he being truthful, or is he lying?




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Seems your needle is stuck again

Biden on Friday said he would prefer the price tag described as “zero.”

“We pay for everything we spend,” Biden said at the White House. “It’s going to be zero. Zero.”

Yes Jim Zero if it’s paid for it will add zero to the debt…. Why is it so hard for you to read between the lines ..

but you actually think he means Zero who’s being disingenuous here you or Biden
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems your needle is stuck again

Biden on Friday said he would prefer the price tag described as “zero.”

“We pay for everything we spend,” Biden said at the White House. “It’s going to be zero. Zero.”

Yes Jim Zero if it’s paid for it will add zero to the debt…. Why is it so hard for you to read between the lines ..

but you actually think he means Zero who’s being disingenuous here you or Biden
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Yes Jim Zero if it’s paid for it will add zero to the debt…. Why is it so hard for you to read between the lines .."

First, there is a big difference between something costing $0, and something adding $0 to the debt. He seems to be conflating those two things.

Second, if it's going to be paid for, where does the $3.5T come from, exactly?

The top-line figure is $3.5 trillion. That's a package of investments that could bring $2 trillion in new revenue and savings, yielding net cost of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Annualized, that amount is less than three Pentagon contractors got last year.
And remember, we are out of Afghanistan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden comes closer than most politicians

I’m sure some will trickle in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The top-line figure is $3.5 trillion. That's a package of investments that could bring $2 trillion in new revenue and savings, yielding net cost of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Annualized, that amount is less than three Pentagon contractors got last year.
And remember, we are out of Afghanistan

"could bring" . . . "over 10 years"--sounds iffy and sketchy. Sounds like the same rosy possibilities that have been forecast for previous spending bills, but the debt somehow kept rising anyway. Getting out of Afghanistan maybe, possibly, coulda woulda shouda, save us money, or cost us in aftermath problems which will cost more money again.

And getting out of something doesn't guarantee that we won't get into more somethings. And many of us have stopped believing government's rosy promises/lies.

U.S spent 5.8 trillion in Afghanistan & trillions in Iraq. Past time to invest in Americans-infrastructure, technology, child care, education, energy,health, drinkable water etc. Returns will abound in a prospering nation.The rich can pay taxes, they agree

And that "Past time to invest" thingy is the getting into more somethings that is guarantied to happen unless the federal government actually gets out of most of those things and constitutionally lets the states do them.

Ain't gonna happen unless the federal government is forced to massively cut spending instead of spending beyond its means. And constant borrowing is not a feasible means.

And the money it borrows to do wonderful sounding things (for which it was not constitutionally designed to do) winds up in the pockets of the rich and powerful who you claim is strangling the government. (With various kickbacks to the political Mafia, of course.)

"Yes Jim Zero if it’s paid for it will add zero to the debt…. Why is it so hard for you to read between the lines .."

First, there is a big difference between something costing $0, and something adding $0 to the debt. He seems to be conflating those two things.

Second, if it's going to be paid for, where does the $3.5T come from, exactly?

Jim it’s just odd what comments you take literally and the comments you take as Hyperbole..

They do seem to be one sided
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim it’s just odd what comments you take literally and the comments you take as Hyperbole..

They do seem to be one sided
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so when biden said it costs zero dollars, it’s “hyperbole” if i don’t interpret that, as him saying it will only cost 1.5 trillion dollars? or something?

how about his promise to cure cancer? was that also hyperbole?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well since Biden supporting counties generate 70% of the GDP and I’d assume a commensurate portion of taxes, I find it laughable that the 30% contributors are so concerned about their minority share of taxation increasing.
They are quite willing to live in taking states
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no it’s not. it’s about two democrat senators who (1) want to remain senators, and (2) know that they represent purple states, not blue
states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Activists who helped elect Kyrsten Sinema launch PAC to fund a primary challenger against her
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Activists who helped elect Kyrsten Sinema launch PAC to fund a primary challenger against her
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she ran as a moderate. AZ wasn’t ready to elect Bernie Sanders. maybe now they are.

go ahead and primary challenge her, that’s how the system
works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A catastrophic failure of US journalism and politics is that something like Biden's 10-year, $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill is not called a $350 billion annual bill...but the Pentagon's budget, which will exceed $7.5 trillion over a decade, is called a $750 billion annual bill
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Manchin and Sinema say they won’t vote for a $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill.

The US war budget doesn’t go down, not even after we allegedly end wars. It was bigger than ever this year. $7.5 trillion is the floor for what it will be over the next decade—and both voted for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile one should ask, when will Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley get a subpoena for their actions on January 6th?

Asking for a friend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile one should ask, when will Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley get a subpoena for their actions on January 6th?

Asking for a friend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell your friend that his/her/its question is off topic.

A catastrophic failure of US journalism and politics is that something like Biden's 10-year, $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill is not called a $350 billion annual bill...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they should definitely be government censored in the future perhaps jailed for armed digital insurrection...or at least insubordination

Joe Biden received more votes in his election than any other presidential candidate in history. The American people overwhelmingly support his agenda. Its time for Congress to do the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Joe Biden received more votes in his election than any other presidential candidate in history. The American people overwhelmingly support his agenda. Its time for Congress to do the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup....clearly treasonous behavior by the media and those that don't support our great president...

J

The American people overwhelmingly support his agenda.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

define "overwhelmingly"

pete apparently got the memo the biden admin is circulating...
this is the best line

the memo states. "And because President Biden’s plan is fully paid for, we can do this with a price tag of $0." :rotf2:

Joe Biden received more votes in his election than any other presidential candidate in history. The American people overwhelmingly support his agenda. Its time for Congress to do the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the american people overwhelmingly didn’t like Trumps personality, and agreed to the moderate agenda that Biden ran on.

if they wanted a progressive liberal agenda, the senate wouldn’t be 50-50. The people of AZ and WV didn’t elect moderate senators to transform the country. if thats what the democrats want, then nominate candidates who say that up front and see how they do in november.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm trying to remember the last time democrat proposals, plans, spending cost less than they promised....not even "one dime down" ....this is truly HISTORIC ! :uhuh:

the american people overwhelmingly

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a majority of americans don't believe biden is mentally sharp...he'll probably step on the gas thinking it's the brake but we'll give him the keys anyway :)

a majority of americans don't believe biden is mentally sharp...he'll probably step on the gas thinking it's the brake but we'll give him the keys anyway :)

his current approval ratings aren’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

we’re not a left wing country at the moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

his current approval ratings aren’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

we’re not a left wing country at the moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not his fault, he's a victim of the insurrectionist media that won't report the approved narrative dutifully...or something

Only Trump has had a lower job approval rating than Biden does during similar points in their presidencies, according to a new poll, which found that the president’s approval rating hit a new low of 43%. Sept 22nd 2021

But Jim is all excited

Democratic’s just need to do what Republicans do say F principles and vote party …. Voting based on principles is actually doing nothing and won’t help in the midterm or help them get re elected … .. Dems never learn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is why we tax the rich
the top 10 percent held 69.8 percent of total U.S. net worth (which is the value of all assets a person holds minus all their liabilities). The top 1 percent held about half of that wealth – 32.1 percent, while the next 9 percent held approximately another half at 37.7 percent.

The top 1% of Americans have about 16 times more wealth than the bottom 50%

So 10% have 70% of the wealth of American

(Republican senators and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is a repeal of the estate tax.

The #DeathTax is an unfair tax that burdens family farms & ranches. Tragedy & loss shouldn’t be exploited to fill the federal government's coffers. Today, I led colleagues, including @LeaderMcConnell, @MikeCrapo, & many more, to reintro a #DeathTaxRepeal.

That’s a tax paid by only 2,500 of America’s 153 million tax filers, all of whom are (or were) among the richest Americans. Also, 100% of those on whom the tax is levied are dead when the bill arrives.

But Jim says we’ll we got a tax cut…. Again the 2 are not even comparable the only thing they have in common is the words Tax Cut .. The Republicans don’t like the infrastructure bill because it helps Americans and those Americans vote. And they can’t allow Biden to pass something to help Americans the True face of the Republican Party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only Trump has had a lower job approval rating than Biden does during similar points in their presidencies, according to a new poll, which found that the president’s approval rating hit a new low of 43%. Sept 22nd 2021

But Jim is all excited

Democratic’s just need to do what Republicans do say F principles and vote party …. Voting based on principles is actually doing nothing and won’t help in the midterm or help them get re elected … .. Dems never learn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

correct, biden is second to trump at this point. and trump got creamed.

i’m not excited about 2024, nothing that happens today will be remembered in 2024.

Trump implemented policies that Americans actually like. Cut taxes, grew the economy like crazy, stupid low unemployment, low gas prices that were in part due to his willingness to increase american supply, no humiliating international flops, zero inflation ( not all because of him obviously), stick market records ( not all because of him obviously), peace treaties in the middle east, and a lightning quick release of the vaccine ( little to do with him, but happened in his watch).

now we have meaningful inflation, soaring gas prices, a humiliation in afghanistan ( perceived or real is up to you), and a complete disaster at the southern border that more and more people are seeing for what it is, and in fighting within the party between progressives and moderates, and a president who looks more and more feeble. and growing frustration over covid lockdowns and obvious liberal indoctrination of children in schools.

all while there appears to be some
kind of problem with supply of goods into the US Which may soon start frustrating people.


i don’t see a lot of tailwinds helping biden anytime soon. Not all of them are his fault, we’ve been due for inflation, gas prices had nowhere to go but up, and not all covid results are the presidents responsibility.

It’s a challenging time on many fronts, perhaps not the best time to elect an 80 year old Alzheimer’s patient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Latest WVa poll reveals over 70% of West Virginians support every aspect of the Biden infrastructure bill. Manchin is marching to corporate donor orders, not everyday WVa’ers

Latest WVa poll reveals over 70% of West Virginians support every aspect of the Biden infrastructure bill. Manchin is marching to corporate donor orders, not everyday WVa’ers

well, we know that 99.9% of west virginians are uneducated hicks who married their sisters....soooo....I wouldn't put much stock in that nugget

In Arizona, 72% supported the American Rescue Plan, with most giving credit to the Democratic Party for passing provisions including vaccine distribution, stimulus checks and expanded child tax credit.

Latest WVa poll reveals over 70% of West Virginians support every aspect of the Biden infrastructure bill. Manchin is marching to corporate donor orders, not everyday WVa’ers

i’m not sure Manchin opposes the spending that’s actually aimed at infastructure.

I’m not a “corporate donor”, yet I still
support Manchins priority that our corporate tax rate be very competitively. The entire left endlessly and desperately tries to convince themselves that only the 1% benefit from policy that helps business. most of us either work at a business or buy things from a business or somehow own stock in some business somewhere ( usually in our 401k). what’s good for business, helps all of us. i’m sorry if you despise that fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Jim,
You just eat the baloney and regurgitate it

Before the pandemic, there was 1 person worth $100 billion. Now there are 10.

Before the pandemic, those 10 people were worth $650 billion. Now they are worth $1.4 trillion.

Must have been all the hard labor and risk they took.

Before the pandemic, there was 1 person worth $100 billion. Now there are 10.

.

the pandemic has been a huge boon for china, democrats and big tech/corporate entities tied to democrats...hmmmmm

In Arizona, 72% supported the American Rescue Plan, with most giving credit to the Democratic Party for passing provisions including vaccine distribution, stimulus checks and expanded child tax credit.

most Americans support the government sending them "free money"

Sorry Jim,
You just eat the baloney and regurgitate it

Before the pandemic, there was 1 person worth $100 billion. Now there are 10.

Before the pandemic, those 10 people were worth $650 billion. Now they are worth $1.4 trillion.

Must have been all the hard labor and risk they took.

"Before the pandemic, there was 1 person worth $100 billion. Now there are 10."

(1) so what? would anyone be better off if we burned all that money? They created it, they didn't steal it.
(2) how many are republican, how many are democrat?

"Must have been all the hard labor and risk they took"

You're being sarcastic, but that's what it is. You think you work more hours in a week than Jeff Bezos or Tim Cook?

You are deranged with jealousy, and consumed with the nonsense that one person's wealth was caused by another person's poverty. It doesn't work that way, wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If it were, GDP would be constant.

Pete, just tell me this...how does it hurt you, if Apple's stock performance or Amazon's stock performance makes those CEOs richer? In what way does that have a negative impact on anybody?

Those people pay a boatload of taxes, they invest money which creates jobs, they spend a lot of money which creates jobs, and they give tons to charity.

How are you better off if those people were only half as successful as they are?

I don't think anyone needs a billion dollars, but I could care less if someone has that goal and then achieves it, as long as they do it legally.

"You just eat the baloney and regurgitate it"

This, from the guy obsessed with the wealth 100 private citizens in a country of 330 million.

If you want what they have, do what they did, or stop crying about it.

Meanwhile
Rural Americans are dying of Covid at more than twice the rate of their urban counterparts —Exacerbated by the refusal of Republicans to support literally any policy or program that might deliver more accessible and less expensive care to their own supporters…

In Arizona, 72% supported the American Rescue Plan, with most giving credit to the Democratic Party for passing provisions including vaccine distribution, stimulus checks and expanded child tax credit.

Trumps tax cuts also greatly expanded the child tax credit, that saved me almost $3500 a year. How come you didn't post about what a good thing it was when Trump did the same exact thing?

"Before the pandemic, there was 1 person worth $100 billion. Now there are 10."

(1) so what? would anyone be better off if we burned all that money? They created it, they didn't steal it.
(2) how many are republican, how many are democrat?

"Must have been all the hard labor and risk they took"

You're being sarcastic, but that's what it is. You think you work more hours in a week than Jeff Bezos or Tim Cook?

You are deranged with jealousy, and consumed with the nonsense that one person's wealth was caused by another person's poverty. It doesn't work that way, wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If it were, GDP would be constant.

Pete, just tell me this...how does it hurt you, if Apple's stock performance or Amazon's stock performance makes those CEOs richer? In what way does that have a negative impact on anybody?

Those people pay a boatload of taxes, they invest money which creates jobs, they spend a lot of money which creates jobs, and they give tons to charity.

How are you better off if those people were only half as successful as they are?

I don't think anyone needs a billion dollars, but I could care less if someone has that goal and then achieves it, as long as they do it legally.

"You just eat the baloney and regurgitate it"

This, from the guy obsessed with the wealth 100 private citizens in a country of 330 million.

If you want what they have, do what they did, or stop crying about it.

Rant much?

You’re right. It takes thousands of people working for almost nothing to make someone a billion dollars. Capitalism will eat itself.

The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019. This downsizing has proceeded slowly but surely since 1971, with each decade thereafter typically ending with a smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at the beginning of the decade.

Rant much?

.

from the guy that cuts and pastes encyclopedic volumes.....:kewl:

It takes thousands of people working for almost nothing to make someone a billion dollars.

.

this is stupid.....

In Arizona, 72% supported the American Rescue Plan, with most giving credit to the Democratic Party for passing provisions including vaccine distribution, stimulus checks and expanded child tax credit.

Trumps tax cuts also greatly expanded the child tax credit, that saved me almost $3500 a year. How come you didn't post about what a good thing it was when Trump did the same exact thing?

As I have stated previously, I wanted Trump gone, he is, I'm glad and you are sad.

well, we know that 99.9% of west virginians are uneducated hicks who married their sisters....soooo....I wouldn't put much stock in that nugget

the pandemic has been a huge boon for china, democrats and big tech/corporate entities tied to democrats...hmmmmm

most Americans support the government sending them "free money"

this is stupid.....

:huh:

Rant much?

You’re right. It takes thousands of people working for almost nothing to make someone a billion dollars. Capitalism will eat itself.

The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019. This downsizing has proceeded slowly but surely since 1971, with each decade thereafter typically ending with a smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at the beginning of the decade.

You still won't answer my question.

How is anyone better off, if the 100 wealthiest people were only half as successful?

Are you saying that if they were less successful, that their lost wealth would necessarily go to the less fortunate? It doesn't work that way, because they created their wealth, they didn't steal it.

Christ, what a stupid, devoid-of-any-logic, broken record.

I agree that it's not fair that there are billionaires and poor people. But one person's wealth has nothing to do with another person's poverty. They're not connected to each other.

Ands as Scott correctly said, even if you took every cent that the billionaires have, it's nothing compared to the federal budget.

If you dont have what you want in life, and you want to know why, the answer isn't on the cover of Forbes magazine, it's much more likely that the answer is staring at you in the mirror.

Your premise is stupid, it has no logic to it, and it's completely refuted by the math, which clearly shows that tweaking tax rates on the wealthy doesn't add up to much.

:huh:

it is all true....except I don't believe that about wv....that's the leftists particularly, ne leftists attitude

Ands as Scott correctly said, even if you took every cent that the billionaires have, it's nothing compared to the federal budget.

.

clearly we should kill them and take their stuff and evenly distribute it among the people they victimized to create their wealth and the world would be a better place

Just when did I say nobody should be successful, I have learned that trickle down doesn't work and that paying off politicians can get you a lot better treatment.

Pass the Buffett Rule. The Buffett rule, inspired by billionaire Warren Buffett, would require millionaires to pay a minimum tax rate of 30%. This will guarantee that the wealthy will not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle-class family pays. It would raise $72 billion over 10 years.

Close the Wall Street carried interest loophole. Wealthy private equity managers use a loophole to pay the lower 23.8% capital gains tax rate on the compensation they receive for managing other people’s money. We should close this loophole so that they pay the same rate as others at their income level who receive their compensation as salary. This would raise $17 billion over 10 years.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000. And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.

Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today.

clearly we should kill them and take their stuff and evenly distribute it among the people they victimized to create their wealth and the world would be a better place

Sounds implausible, doesn't it?

In 1993, Timothy McVeigh wrote his hometown paper: “Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.”

Two years later he murdered 168 people.

That the OKC bombing has somehow been memory-holed both baffles and explains a lot

clearly we should kill them and take their stuff and evenly distribute it among the people they victimized to create their wealth and the world would be a better place

I did the math, I looked at Walmart, if you took all of the CEOs annual compensation and gave it to the US workers, it worked out to around $35 per year. Big whoop.

clearly we should kill them and take their stuff and evenly distribute it among the people they victimized to create their wealth and the world would be a better place

When I was 19, I heard the CT democrats saying if we could just take a little more from the wealthy, we could end poverty. It sounds so morally obvious, I registered as a democrat and couldn't believe anyone was opposed. Then one day, someone showed me the very simple and very irrefutable math, showed how stupid it was to make that argument. It's all a big fat lie.

I'm not saying its Fair that there are billionaires, but they aren't any kind of viable solution to our big problems. Their collective wealth is a rounding error in the big picture. yet the left never stops obsessing with them. Because it sounds great, like Biden promising to cure cancer.

Just when did I say nobody should be successful, I have learned that trickle down doesn't work and that paying off politicians can get you a lot better treatment.

Pass the Buffett Rule. The Buffett rule, inspired by billionaire Warren Buffett, would require millionaires to pay a minimum tax rate of 30%. This will guarantee that the wealthy will not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle-class family pays. It would raise $72 billion over 10 years.

Close the Wall Street carried interest loophole. Wealthy private equity managers use a loophole to pay the lower 23.8% capital gains tax rate on the compensation they receive for managing other people’s money. We should close this loophole so that they pay the same rate as others at their income level who receive their compensation as salary. This would raise $17 billion over 10 years.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000. And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.

Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today.

"Just when did I say nobody should be successful"

I said, if they were less successful, who benefits?

No one benefits.

As to the Buffet rule, the problem is we differentiate (smartly in my opinion) between income and capital gains. Capital gains involves a lot of risk, you have to incentivize people to take that risk. Ordinary income and capital gains are two very different things, and wealthy people get a lot more from capital gains.

When I was 19, I heard the CT democrats saying if we could just take a little more from the wealthy, we could end poverty. It sounds so morally obvious, I registered as a democrat and couldn't believe anyone was opposed. Then one day, someone showed me the very simple and very irrefutable math, showed how stupid it was to make that argument. It's all a big fat lie.

I'm not saying its Fair that there are billionaires, but they aren't any kind of viable solution to our big problems. Their collective wealth is a rounding error in the big picture. yet the left never stops obsessing with them. Because it sounds great, like Biden promising to cure cancer.


yeah but don't you remember that guy McVeigh? :hs:

I did the math, I looked at Walmart, if you took all of the CEOs annual compensation and gave it to the US workers, it worked out to around $35 per year. Big whoop.
It's much worse than that. If you took the yearly income of a part time greeter and distributed it evenly to every top store manager it would come out to roughly 1.43 dollars. This doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

Even worse, randomly divide by 5!!!!!

It's much worse than that. If you took the yearly income of a part time greeter and distributed it evenly to every top store manager it would come out to roughly 1.43 dollars. This doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

Even worse, randomly divide by 5!!!!!

Spence, if we could make a dent in poverty by taxing the uber wealthy, I'd support it 100%. It doesn't work. It doesn't come close to working. You can't eliminate poverty by giving money to poor people. The lack of money isn't the cause of their problem, it's usually the symptom of the underlying problem.

Funny how your side never stops claiming it has a monopoly on caring for the poor, yet you oppose school choice? I could swear I've heard liberals describe themselves as being "pro choice" somewhere, I'm almost certain of it. It seems your advocacy of choice is rather selective, doesn't it?

Let the parents choose where that money is spent, and public schools would be ten times better in an hour.

Sadly, democrats can't go against their masters in the teachers unions, so those poor kids, disproportionately black, are stuck in failing sh-thole schools.

Oddly enough, the best schools are in Mass, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia and Vermont.
Worst is easy, pick most any Republican state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Income Inequality Is Not a Myth It’s a historical fact . I find it funny the right is always wanting to go back in time to the “good old days” of the 1950s @ 1960. Which happens to be when income inequalities were at their lowest .. fast forward today and some how income inequality is because of lazy Americans against successful people


The notion that we owe whatever economic prosperity we have to the genius of these high-performing frontier firms. So let’s get out government out of the way and let these frontier firms work more wonders. Let’s deregulate the economy. Let’s free companies from labor-protection rules that reduce their flexibility. Let’s limit collective bargaining.

As trade union membership declines, inequality rises,” notes the OECD’s Trade Union Advisory Committee. “And yet OECD recommendations have largely remained the same: reduce labor market dualism by reducing employment protection legislation for regular workers, decentralize collective bargaining systems — including opt-outs for individual companies — and reduce what is termed as ‘excess coverage’ of collective bargaining.”

https://ips-dc.org/whos-to-blame-for-inequality/

Jim your school choice is red herring .. and plays right into what’s written , trying to expand choice of those with resources and removing funds from everyone else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/01/PSDT_01.10.20_economic-inequality_0-5.png

Income Inequality Is Not a Myth It’s a historical fact . I find it funny the right is always wanting to go back in time to the “good old days” of the 1950s @ 1960. Which happens to be when income inequalities were at their lowest .. fast forward today and some how income inequality is because of lazy Americans against successful people


The notion that we owe whatever economic prosperity we have to the genius of these high-performing frontier firms. So let’s get out government out of the way and let these frontier firms work more wonders. Let’s deregulate the economy. Let’s free companies from labor-protection rules that reduce their flexibility. Let’s limit collective bargaining.

As trade union membership declines, inequality rises,” notes the OECD’s Trade Union Advisory Committee. “And yet OECD recommendations have largely remained the same: reduce labor market dualism by reducing employment protection legislation for regular workers, decentralize collective bargaining systems — including opt-outs for individual companies — and reduce what is termed as ‘excess coverage’ of collective bargaining.”

https://ips-dc.org/whos-to-blame-for-inequality/

Jim your school choice is red herring .. and plays right into what’s written , trying to expand choice of those with resources and removing funds from everyone else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why is school choice a red herring? it only removes funds from schools that parents ( customers) think are bad. why shouldn’t we de emphasize lousy schools and expand the benefit of good schools to kids who today are excluded from those benefits?

why are you afraid of letting people
decide which school is right for their kids?

i never said income inequality isn’t real. has anyone ever said that?

my boss chooses to work 70 hours a week. why shouldn’t he make
more than me? what’s unfair about that?

this union mindset that everyone makes the same regardless of the quality and quality of their work, is nonsense.

thanks to teachers unions, the gym
teacher gets paid the same as the guy who teaches AP physics. Stupid.

Who the hell said we all owe our entire economic prosperity to these guys? you’re making sh-t up. i said they create wealth, they don’t steal every dollar they have from someone else.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this union mindset that everyone makes the same regardless of the quality and quality of their work, is nonsense.

thanks to teachers unions, the gym
teacher gets paid the same as the guy who teaches AP physics. Stupid.

Actually this isn't at all how it works Jim.

why is school choice a red herring? it only removes funds from schools that parents ( customers) think are bad. why shouldn’t we de emphasize lousy schools and expand the benefit of good schools to kids who today are excluded from those benefits?

why are you afraid of letting people
decide which school is right for their kids?

i never said income inequality isn’t real. has anyone ever said that?

my boss chooses to work 70 hours a week. why shouldn’t he make
more than me? what’s unfair about that?

this union mindset that everyone makes the same regardless of the quality and quality of their work, is nonsense.

thanks to teachers unions, the gym
teacher gets paid the same as the guy who teaches AP physics. Stupid.

Who the hell said we all owe our entire economic prosperity to these guys? you’re making sh-t up. i said they create wealth, they don’t steal every dollar they have from someone else.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now do Epi-pens, insulin and pretty much the entire healthcare system.
Lots of wealth created there also, I guess when you increase the price of a drug by the stroke of a pen you deserve it.

Actually this isn't at all how it works Jim.

the hell it’s not, i was a public schoolteacher. salary is based on seniority and credentials.

so if an AP physics teacher and a gym teacher each have a masters degree and ten years experience, in Connecticut at least, they make the same exact salary.

tell me where i’m wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now do Epi-pens, insulin and pretty much the entire healthcare system.
Lots of wealth created there also, I guess when you increase the price of a drug by the stroke of a pen you deserve it.

people who price gouge for medical treatment are unique, and bad. separate issue.

who is Oprah Winfrey hurting? If you don’t like Jeff Bezos, you can choose not to use Amazon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Income Inequality Is Not a Myth It’s a historical fact .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I could have so much fun with this....but I think I'll just leave it right there.....

the hell it’s not, i was a public schoolteacher. salary is based on seniority and credentials.

so if an AP physics teacher and a gym teacher each have a masters degree and ten years experience, in Connecticut at least, they make the same exact salary.

tell me where i’m wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You just defeated your own argument.

You just defeated your own argument.

no i didn’t. i said that a gym teacher and a physics teacher with the same seniority, are guaranteed the same
pay. as are all teachers with the same seniority, regardless of whether they’re the best teacher or the worst teacher, they get the same pay, the same raise.

Tell me how that makes any sense at all.

Don’t know what planet you’re on .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

people who price gouge for medical treatment are unique, and bad. separate issue.

who is Oprah Winfrey hurting? If you don’t like Jeff Bezos, you can choose not to use Amazon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except that he’s sucked the money out of the market for anyone else and your only other choice is to mine the raw material and fabricate it yourself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So apparently the argument only works when it does otherwise it is different, “Damn you Enoch, you know I have two pigs”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except that he’s sucked the money out of the market for anyone else and your only other choice is to mine the raw material and fabricate it yourself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, he figured out how to do retail better than everyone else. he didn’t suck the money away from others. Customers freely chose to give their money to him.

Liberals pretend like he burned down every mom and pop. Customers made a free choice. It’s our fault, not his fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So apparently the argument only works when it does otherwise it is different, “Damn you Enoch, you know I have two pigs”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are rare exceptions. people
who get richer by stealing or by exploiting customers’ desperation, didn’t create their wealth fairly IMO.

Most wealthy people don’t that category. Duh. So the argument works in almost every single case. i support laws which prevent price gouging in healthcare.

My CEO is close to being a billionaire. I don’t spend a second thinking about it, his extreme wealth doesn’t effect me, nor does it interest me. you’re obsessed with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are rare exceptions. people
who get richer by stealing or by exploiting customers’ desperation, didn’t create their wealth fairly IMO.

Most wealthy people don’t that category. Duh. So the argument works in almost every single case. i support laws which prevent price gouging in healthcare.

My CEO is close to being a billionaire. I don’t spend a second thinking about it, his extreme wealth doesn’t effect me, nor does it interest me. you’re obsessed with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So they are rare, except in healthcare, you know your CEO is close to a billionaire without thinking about it for a second.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions, like yours that only liberals are concerned about changes in markets and logistics that affect how our society works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So they are rare, except in healthcare, you know your CEO is close to a billionaire without thinking about it for a second.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions, like yours that only liberals are concerned about changes in markets and logistics that affect how our society works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re the one making inane assumptions. you’re assuming that one persons acquisition of wealth is responsible for someone else’s lack of wealth. liberals want people to believe that so they feel victimized. But it’s not true.

Again, if you or anyone else wants what someone else has, do what they did to get it. do precisely what they did to get it. we are limited only by our abilities and our work ethic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re the one making inane assumptions. you’re assuming that one persons acquisition of wealth is responsible for someone else’s lack of wealth. liberals want people to believe that so they feel victimized. But it’s not true.

Again, if you or anyone else wants what someone else has, do what they did to get it. do precisely what they did to get it. we are limited only by our abilities and our work ethic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim that’s not what I said Amazon and Bezos are totally dependent on the infrastructure that society creates to make the business work.
They need healthy educated people to work for them, transportation to deliver and receive goods and all the rest of the public services to be able to conduct business.
They should carry their share.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim that’s not what I said Amazon and Bezos are totally dependent on the infrastructure that society creates to make the business work.
They need healthy educated people to work for them, transportation to deliver and receive goods and all the rest of the public services to be able to conduct business.
They should carry their share.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you cried about the wealthy getting wealthier, without even trying to explain why that’s bad. Boo hoo.

Yes Amazon needs roads and bridges. Which is why the feds and states have gas taxes and tolls, which Amazon pays same as you.

i looked it up, in 2018 ( latest year i could find), the top 1% of the wealthiest, earned 20.9% of all adjusted gross income, and paid 40.1% of all federal income taxes.

they’re paying a vastly disproportionate share of our nations tax burden. We have a very progressive tax scale.

You can argue it should be tweaked, and maybe you’re right. But You can’t argue they’re not paying plenty already. not as a group in total.

also, do the math to see how
much more revenue would be generated under whatever marxist tax rate youd impose, and see how meaningless that amount is, compared to the federal budget. it’s not even worth discussing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/economy/wealthiest-americans-share-us-taxes.amp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you cried about the wealthy getting wealthier, without even trying to explain why that’s bad. Boo hoo.

Yes Amazon needs roads and bridges. Which is why the feds and states have gas taxes and tolls, which Amazon pays same as you.

i looked it up, in 2018 ( latest year i could find), the top 1% of the wealthiest, earned 20.9% of all adjusted gross income, and paid 40.1% of all federal income taxes.

they’re paying a vastly disproportionate share of our nations tax burden. We have a very progressive tax scale.

You can argue it should be tweaked, and maybe you’re right. But You can’t argue they’re not paying plenty already. not as a group in total.

also, do the math to see how
much more revenue would be generated under whatever marxist tax rate youd impose, and see how meaningless that amount is, compared to the federal budget. it’s not even worth discussing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/economy/wealthiest-americans-share-us-taxes.amp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your numbers would be usable if they were based on wealth, not income. It's not how much money you make, it's how much you keep. No billionaire, or wealthy person for that matter in this country tries to increase his income, they would then be taxed.
So they legally (in most cases) take their income in un or less taxed methods. Lots more ways to take income untaxed if like your CEO you can take some as stock options. Since 1978 CEO compensation has risen 940% while worker compensation has risen 12%, guess who sets pay rates?

As far as the effect of taxes, I can find experts who claim that taxation increases growth.

Bruce Bartlett, who served under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, drafted the Kemp-Roth tax bill, the basis of the Reagan tax cuts.

Mr. Bartlett, in an August 2016 op-ed in the New York Times, recognized that "the Reagan tax cut played only a secondary role in the 1980s boom." Furthermore, he pointed out that Reagan, concerned about deficits, "supported 11 different increases from 1982 to 1988 that collectively took back half of the 1981 tax cut."

Mr. Bartlett also noted that the "economy tanked during the Bush years despite numerous large tax cuts" and that "there is far more evidence from the last 35 years showing that tax increases do more to stimulate growth than tax cuts."

Your numbers would be usable if they were based on wealth, not income. It's not how much money you make, it's how much you keep. No billionaire, or wealthy person for that matter in this country tries to increase his income, they would then be taxed.
So they legally (in most cases) take their income in un or less taxed methods. Lots more ways to take income untaxed if like your CEO you can take some as stock options. Since 1978 CEO compensation has risen 940% while worker compensation has risen 12%, guess who sets pay rates?

As far as the effect of taxes, I can find experts who claim that taxation increases growth.

Bruce Bartlett, who served under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, drafted the Kemp-Roth tax bill, the basis of the Reagan tax cuts.

Mr. Bartlett, in an August 2016 op-ed in the New York Times, recognized that "the Reagan tax cut played only a secondary role in the 1980s boom." Furthermore, he pointed out that Reagan, concerned about deficits, "supported 11 different increases from 1982 to 1988 that collectively took back half of the 1981 tax cut."

Mr. Bartlett also noted that the "economy tanked during the Bush years despite numerous large tax cuts" and that "there is far more evidence from the last 35 years showing that tax increases do more to stimulate growth than tax cuts."

it’s called federal income tax, not federal wealth tax.

“no wealthy person tries to increase his income. they would then be taxed.”

that is probably the most economically stupid thing posted on then internet this year.

“i can find experts that say that taxation increases growth.

those must be some serious, honest experts.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots more ways to take income untaxed if like your CEO you can take some as stock options."[/COLOR]

You're saying stock options are un-taxed.

I presume you don't live in this country, then? You see, here in America, when you exercise stock options, not only are they taxed, it's taxed as ordinary income.

Then when you sell the shares, you pay capital gains tax on any appreciation between the day you exercised, and the day you sold.

Just keep making up Marxist bullsh*t.

Look it up. I'm right.

You're saying stock options are un-taxed.

I'll assume that is your reading comprehension issue, unless you are just lying, I said "So they legally (in most cases) take their income in un or less taxed methods."

I presume you don't live in this country, then? You see, here in America, when you exercise stock options, not only are they taxed, it's taxed as ordinary income.

Then when you sell the shares, you pay capital gains tax on any appreciation between the day you exercised, and the day you sold.

Just keep making up Marxist bullsh*t.

Look it up. I'm right.

Anyone who disagrees with a fascist is called a marxist, that is the history of fascism.

When you exercise stock options is the difference, the majority of Americans don't have that choice.

But read this, so you can see how, here in America, it works.

The 25 richest Americans, including Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Elon Musk, paid relatively little — and sometimes nothing — in federal income taxes between 2014 and 2018, according to an analysis from the news organization ProPublica that was based on a trove of Internal Revenue Service tax data.

The analysis showed that the nation’s richest executives paid just a fraction of their wealth in taxes — $13.6 billion in federal income taxes during a time period when their collective net worth increased by $401 billion, according to a tabulation by Forbes.

The documents reveal the stark inequity in the American tax system, as plutocrats like Mr. Bezos, Mr. Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Mr. Musk and George Soros were able to benefit from a complex web of loopholes in the tax code and the fact that the United States puts its emphasis on taxing labor income versus wealth. Much of the wealth that the rich accrue — like shares in companies they run, vacation homes, yachts and other investments — isn’t considered “taxable income” unless those assets are sold and a gain is realized. Even then, there are loopholes in the tax code that can limit or erase all tax liability.

Of course if you are kinda rich and stupid, you would do things like TFG to avoid taxes.

Allen Weisselberg's indictment accuses him of erasing portions of entries in a ledger called 'Donald J. Trump's Detail General Ledger' during the 2016 campaign.

If there was a ledger for him, it blows up the notion that Trump didn’t know about it.

Court documents and interviews indicate that the Manhattan District Attorney is accumulating evidence of pervasive tax fraud.

Anyone who disagrees with a fascist is called a marxist, that is the history of fascism.

When you exercise stock options is the difference, the majority of Americans don't have that choice.

But read this, so you can see how, here in America, it works.

The 25 richest Americans, including Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Elon Musk, paid relatively little — and sometimes nothing — in federal income taxes between 2014 and 2018, according to an analysis from the news organization ProPublica that was based on a trove of Internal Revenue Service tax data.

The analysis showed that the nation’s richest executives paid just a fraction of their wealth in taxes — $13.6 billion in federal income taxes during a time period when their collective net worth increased by $401 billion, according to a tabulation by Forbes.

The documents reveal the stark inequity in the American tax system, as plutocrats like Mr. Bezos, Mr. Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Mr. Musk and George Soros were able to benefit from a complex web of loopholes in the tax code and the fact that the United States puts its emphasis on taxing labor income versus wealth. Much of the wealth that the rich accrue — like shares in companies they run, vacation homes, yachts and other investments — isn’t considered “taxable income” unless those assets are sold and a gain is realized. Even then, there are loopholes in the tax code that can limit or erase all tax liability.

you’re desperately firing al over the place now.


we don’t tax wealth. so if jeff bezos’ house appreciates but he doesn’t sell it, you’re saying he should pay taxes on that?

what happens if there’s a housing crash like in 2008, and everyone’s house is worth less, the feds are going issue refunds?

sounds very practical Pete. you’re talking about taxing “unrealized” gains. Bonkers.

and you said explicitly, stock options are untaxed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re saying I’m desperate?

There’s an entire market segment in this country that gets paid to help people avoid taxes and plenty of lobbyists that get paid and write the legislation to minimize them.
It’s not anywhere near the majority of Americans doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re saying I’m desperate?

There’s an entire market segment in this country that gets paid to help people avoid taxes and plenty of lobbyists that get paid and write the legislation to minimize them.
It’s not anywhere near the majority of Americans doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, you’re desperately, and very unsuccessfully, trying to appear like something other than an ignoramus.

I’m not saying our tax structure is perfect, but i’m saying only a complete lunatic thinks it’s a good idea to tax unrealized gains. what if someone has a baseball card collection, the IRS is going to come in every single year and determine the value? same with jewelry, art collections, car collections?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, you’re desperately, and very unsuccessfully, trying to appear like something other than an ignoramus.

I’m not saying our tax structure is perfect, but i’m saying only a complete lunatic thinks it’s a good idea to tax unrealized gains. what if someone has a baseball card collection, the IRS is going to come in every single year and determine the value? same with jewelry, art collections, car collections?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You always try and reduce things to stupidity, like most people blindly following directions.

Other people who you would apparently consider ignoramuses like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen.

Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met.

You always try and reduce things to stupidity, like most people blindly following directions.

Other people who you would apparently consider ignoramuses like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen.

Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met.

"Uou always try and reduce things to stupidity"

Wrong, I'm one of the few here who often agrees with either side. But the idea of taxing unrealized gains is beyond stupid.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen."

Which is why I explicitly said our current tax structure isn't perfect, I have no doubt it can be improved. But taxing unrealized gains is absurd. Equally wrong to say that stock options are untaxed. You don't have a great foundation of knowledge on this issue.

And those billionaires you listed are free to give the IRS as much as they want. Yet none of them ever pay more than the law requires. So it sounds like empty talk to me.

"Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met"

Right, they are unrealized until the item is sold for more than you paid for it. Gains are unrealized until you have the money. The value of big assets fluctuates, sometimes wildly. It's not anywhere near feasible to levy a tax based on the value of a held asset. The only practical way to do it is to tax gains when they are realized. Anything else would be impossible.

"Uou always try and reduce things to stupidity"

Wrong, I'm one of the few here who often agrees with either side. But the idea of taxing unrealized gains is beyond stupid.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen."

Which is why I explicitly said our current tax structure isn't perfect, I have no doubt it can be improved. But taxing unrealized gains is absurd. Equally wrong to say that stock options are untaxed. You don't have a great foundation of knowledge on this issue.

And those billionaires you listed are free to give the IRS as much as they want. Yet none of them ever pay more than the law requires. So it sounds like empty talk to me.

"Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met"

Right, they are unrealized until the item is sold for more than you paid for it. Gains are unrealized until you have the money. The value of big assets fluctuates, sometimes wildly. It's not anywhere near feasible to levy a tax based on the value of a held asset. The only practical way to do it is to tax gains when they are realized. Anything else would be impossible.

Nothing is impossible, though that attitude may be why you are kept in a cubicle.

You do understand that we have no problem taxing people on a valuation basis for what is most families biggest capitol asset, their homes.

The current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.

There are a number of ways to change this, none impossible or beyond understanding (look at the current tax code for something that is beyond comprehension)

1. Eliminate step-up in basis at death

2. Tax capital gains at death

3. Tax capital gains on an accrual basis

4. Retrospective taxation

Nothing is impossible, though that attitude may be why you are kept in a cubicle.

You do understand that we have no problem taxing people on a valuation basis for what is most families biggest capitol asset, their homes.

The current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.

There are a number of ways to change this, none impossible or beyond understanding (look at the current tax code for something that is beyond comprehension)

1. Eliminate step-up in basis at death

2. Tax capital gains at death

3. Tax capital gains on an accrual basis

4. Retrospective taxation

a home is one asset. what would
you do with an art collection?

there’s a reason why it’s never been tried.

nice guess why i’m in a cubicle, you’ve kept alive your impressive streak of being wrong in everything. i’m in a cubicle because my goal
was to find a job where i could
live the way i live now, but not have to work a ton of hours. i’ve had opportunities to move into an office, but i don’t want the extra work hours. i dont need more money, i need more time with my kids.

“tax capital gains at death”. which would force a huge number of people who inherited homes, to sell
them because they can’t afford the tax.

i would truly love all democrats to campaign on the promise of taxing unrealized capital gains.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2018, the top 1% of households obtained 69% of realized long-term capital gains; the top 20% received 90% of the gains.

Although taxation on realization provides advantages with respect to liquidity and valuation, it also creates several problems. The underlying problem is that the current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.
Also the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages, if the asset was held for at least a year before selling. Realized capital gains face a top statutory marginal income tax rate of 20 percent plus a supplemental net investment income tax rate of 3.8 percent, for a combined total of 23.8 percent. Wages face a top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, plus a Medicare tax rate of 2.9 percent and a supplemental tax of 0.9 percent, for a combined rate of 40.8 percent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices

So how much is in a school choice voucher worth

I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices

So how much is in a school choice voucher worth

I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I believe most voucher plans include a household cap. But I’ve yet to see clear proof they actually have a significant benefit. Seems like they just shift the funding burden to the states.

Seems like they just shift the funding burden to the states.

That's where it constitutionally belongs, as well with the curriculum responsibilities.

I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices

So how much is in a school choice voucher worth

I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s a great question, i don’t have a precise answer, i’d say something like this. my suburb spends $15k per student. if a parent wants to choose a private school, maybe the town gives a voucher representing a portion of what they’d spend anyway on that kid, maybe up to $5k, maybe less.

the parents who opt for private school are happy that they made a better choice for their kid. the public school keeps the other $10k they were going to spend in my kid, ow they have more to
spend on the remaining kids. And class sizes decrease.

That’s a major over simplification I know. but it could work and be win-win for everyone except teachers unions, which is the only reason why democrats oppose it. despite referring to themselves as pro choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe most voucher plans include a household cap. But I’ve yet to see clear proof they actually have a significant benefit. Seems like they just shift the funding burden to the states.

not sure how you’d prove it, because you can’t know how private school kids would have done had they stayed in public school.

by what logic would it not work? most poor people want school choice, so are you saying you don’t trust poor black parents to be able to decide what’s best for their kids?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You think $5000 is going to enable a poor family to send their kid to private school in any rural area or suburban area?
Would transportation be free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You think $5000 is going to enable a poor family to send their kid to private school in any rural area or suburban area?
Would transportation be free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well let’s see. i live in a suburban area, and the catholic K-8 school in my town has full tuition of $5,500 a year. so yes, i think such a voucher would help.

In CT, transportation is free for kids who live in the same town as the private school.

even if transportation were included, it’s still a win for the town. they can now spend more money per pupil, and there are now smaller class sizes, which is unanimously agreed to help improve the quality of education.

Plus common sense suggests that if public schools are faced with competition, they’d step up their game.

The only downside is to the teachers unions. Which is all that matters to the Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the kids from East Hartford could just go to their choice of schools in West Hartford.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is the problem: at least 85% of the problem we have in inner-city, high-poverty urban schools has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the quality of education, the qualifications of the teachers, or classroom management skills. Nearly ALL of the problems stem from two things: a total lack of effective consequences that the kids find worth avoiding, and laws that keep incorrigible kids in the classroom. PERIOD—that’s it. If we took care of both of these problems, then the VAST majority of our “failing schools” problem would cease to exist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the kids from East Hartford could just go to their choice of schools in West Hartford.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

very different situation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is the problem: at least 85% of the problem we have in inner-city, high-poverty urban schools has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the quality of education, the qualifications of the teachers, or classroom management skills. Nearly ALL of the problems stem from two things: a total lack of effective consequences that the kids find worth avoiding, and laws that keep incorrigible kids in the classroom. PERIOD—that’s it. If we took care of both of these problems, then the VAST majority of our “failing schools” problem would cease to exist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fine, i agree with much of that. although i’d say the single biggest problem is crappy parenting ( which causes the behavior you mentioned).

you tell me, which political
side would tend to go along with your proposal, and which would fight it. the liberals run the cities, and they run the state of CT, they could fix that today if they wanted.

but my kids are now in private school because of one reason - the public schools are poorly run. unions often implement education policies that are completely at odds with what’s best for kids, and you don’t have union interference in private schools. one reason why they’re better.

Pete, when i taught in an economically challenged suburb of new haven, we had problems with fights between classes. so the principal asked all the teachers to use the 5 minute break between periods to look in the hallways to keep an eye out for trouble. A reasonable request, right?

That same day, the union told
us to absolutely refuse to do that, because that 5 minutes was a contractually negotiated “break”, and that if the school
wanted us to “work” during those 5 minutes, they’d have to pay us first.

That is one thing eroding the quality of education that you left out. The
unions are awful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because West Hartford is 80% white?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fine, i agree with much of that. although i’d say the single biggest problem is crappy parenting ( which causes the behavior you mentioned).

you tell me, which political
side would tend to go along with your proposal, and which would fight it. the liberals run the cities, and they run the state of CT, they could fix that today if they wanted.

but my kids are now in private school because of one reason - the public schools are poorly run. unions often implement education policies that are completely at odds with what’s best for kids, and you don’t have union interference in private schools. one reason why they’re better.

Pete, when i taught in an economically challenged suburb of new haven, we had problems with fights between classes. so the principal asked all the teachers to use the 5 minute break between periods to look in the hallways to keep an eye out for trouble. A reasonable request, right?

That same day, the union told
us to absolutely refuse to do that, because that 5 minutes was a contractually negotiated “break”, and that if the school
wanted us to “work” during those 5 minutes, they’d have to pay us first.

That is one thing eroding the quality of education that you left out. The
unions are awful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a home is one asset. what would
you do with an art collection?

there’s a reason why it’s never been tried.

Never been tried? Most countries in Europe have had a wealth tax at one point in time and some still do. Pros and cons, seems like they are very expansive to manage.

Because West Hartford is 80% white?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course you went to racism.

No, because many people work their butts off to be able to move from Hartford to West Hartford specifically for the schools, and they deserve that.

Not many people like forced busing.

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no, the difference3 is between non union ( hold me accountable for what I do), and union (give me a raise and benefits regardless of whether I work hard or slack.

Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day.

Unlike you, I also know how to discuss things without getting ignored from people as rational as Bryan and not get banned from starting threads. I've never believed that the total measure of a man is how high he is on the company org chart. You obviously feel differently. That mindset shows in the angry, pathetic, warped nature of your posts. And you inability to ever admit that anyone to the right of Pol Pot has ever been right about anything on this forum.

I'm going to retire with a nest egg that will allow my wife and I to live on the interest, and leave every cent of principal for our kids. That's my goal. Having done what we need to do to achieve that, why would I want to work any longer hours than I have to? It's a flaw to take my kids off the school bus? id rather play catch with my kids until dark than work. Id rather coach little league than miss half the games. Read into that whatever you want.

Shock you're a union guy. We're all shocked.

Never been tried? Most countries in Europe have had a wealth tax at one point in time and some still do. Pros and cons, seems like they are very expansive to manage.

Explain to me how youd begin to do it in a country of 330 million, when some people have their wealth in jewelry, baseball cards, rare coins, expensive wine, fine art, gold bars, etc. You'd send different kinds of appraisers to everyone's house, every single year? How would you know who sold what or who bought what?

Of course you went to racism.

No, because many people work their butts off to be able to move from Hartford to West Hartford specifically for the schools, and they deserve that.

Not many people like forced busing.

They deserve to not have black kids?

Aren’t we talking about voluntary school choice?

Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself.

Excludes marginally employed people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction. "

And I've been in a teachers union. Since we're talking about education, which is more relevant?

"you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work."

Not in any teachers union. Not how it works.

They deserve to not have black kids?

Aren’t we talking about voluntary school choice?

Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself.

Excludes marginally employed people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They have earned the right for their kids to go to good schools. If you're talking about busing a few good kids from Hartford to West Hartford, fine, I like that. Busing can go both ways, meaning I wouldn't support the idea of taking kids from West Hartford and shipping them to Hartford.

And there are white people living in Hartford, and minorities in West Hartford. This is news to you?

"Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself."

Most blue states are adamantly opposed. Because teachers unions don't want the competition.

How did your union construction guys like it when jobs were awarded to non-union shops? Did you shake the other guys hand and offer a sincere congratulations? I don't think so.

Explain to me how youd begin to do it in a country of 330 million, when some people have their wealth in jewelry, baseball cards, rare coins, expensive wine, fine art, gold bars, etc. You'd send different kinds of appraisers to everyone's house, every single year? How would you know who sold what or who bought what?
Most wealth taxes I've read about only target the super rich so most Americans wouldn't need to bother with them. They also seem to apply to only certain types of assets. I'm guessing there would have to be some level of self disclosure with the government always having the option for an audit if appropriate.

Most wealth taxes I've read about only target the super rich so most Americans wouldn't need to bother with them. They also seem to apply to only certain types of assets. I'm guessing there would have to be some level of self disclosure with the government always having the option for an audit if appropriate.

That would be manageable I guess, and the revenue it would generate would be a rounding error in terms of our annual budget and total debt. Wouldn't it?

That would be manageable I guess, and the revenue it would generate would be a rounding error in terms of our annual budget and total debt. Wouldn't it?
Warren's plan reportedly would generate 2.75 T over ten years, that's not a rounding error.

Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction.

Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work.

That’s the difference between manager and master.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no, the difference3 is between non union ( hold me accountable for what I do), and union (give me a raise and benefits regardless of whether I work hard or slack.

Are all workers lazy if they are union members? Some of the most skilled guys I've met have been in union shops.

Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day.

8 guys, so you were kinda like a foreman?

Unlike you, I also know how to discuss things without getting ignored from people as rational as Bryan and not get banned from starting threads. I've never believed that the total measure of a man is how high he is on the company org chart. You obviously feel differently. That mindset shows in the angry, pathetic, warped nature of your posts. And you inability to ever admit that anyone to the right of Pol Pot has ever been right about anything on this forum.

I'm going to retire with a nest egg that will allow my wife and I to live on the interest, and leave every cent of principal for our kids. That's my goal. Having done what we need to do to achieve that, why would I want to work any longer hours than I have to? It's a flaw to take my kids off the school bus? id rather play catch with my kids until dark than work. Id rather coach little league than miss half the games. Read into that whatever you want.

Shock you're a union guy. We're all shocked.

Sorry, never a union member.
But have worked with some great union guys.
Unions aren't that scary.

Warren's plan reportedly would generate 2.75 T over ten years, that's not a rounding error.

Nope, 275 B a year isn't a rounding error. But Warren was also reportedly the famous Native American professor at Harvard, who is reportedly opposed to everyone profiting from foreclosures except her and her husband, and who also reportedly thinks skyrocketing tuition is wrong unless all that wampum flows into her saddlebag.

Sorry, never a union member.
But have worked with some great union guys.
Unions aren't that scary.

"Are all workers lazy if they are union members? "

Hearing voices again, I see. I also worked with union workers who were tireless heroes. But when you pay the worst teacher the same as the best teacher, every honest person knows what happens in the end. Then, with public unions, you have the insurmountable conflict interest that arises when the unions give big $$ to elect democrats, who then decide how much money to give to the unions they are beholden to. Again, it's easy to predict what happens there.

Pete, the principal asked us to look in the hallway for a couple of minutes to help keep kids safe, and the union forbid us to do it. If that's OK with you, good for you.

Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day.

"8 guys, so you were kinda like a foreman?"

I don't know what I was kinda like in your bizarre world, only what I actually was in my world.

"Unions aren't that scary."

Again, hearing whose voices. Not scary. But in the public sphere, they are deeply corrupt, and horribly expensive and inefficient.

"Sorry, I’ve managed union work in construction. "

And I've been in a teachers union. Since we're talking about education, which is more relevant?

"you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work."

Not in any teachers union. Not how it works.

I've been on a school board, that is how teacher contracts work.

A principal is an administrator and can't arbitrarily change work rules. That's not how it works.

Sorry, never a union member.
But have worked with some great union guys.
Unions aren't that scary.

There's a difference in the quality and quantity of "scary" between or among different types or classifications of unions such as public sector, or international, or trade unions, or private sector single shop unions.

Public sector unions are the scariest. Strictly in-shop private sector unions make the most sense and are not very scary.

Rounding error #1

The simplest change would be to end basis step-up at death, eliminating the “Angel of Death” loophole. Eliminating basis step-up for heirs would result in a regime called “carryover basis.” The basis of an asset would not change when bequests are made. When the asset is later sold by an heir, the taxable basis would be the same as when the decedent owned it. Under a carryover basis system, capital gains tax would continue to be owed when the gain is realized. An asset that was purchased at $100, bequeathed and inherited at $300, and sold by the heir at $350 would have a capital gain of $250. Under the current system with step-up in basis, the capital gain would only be $50.

Shifting to carryover basis discourages lock-in and tax shelters. The Joint Committee on Taxation staff calculate that a policy ending basis step-up implemented this year would raise $104.9 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, curtailing tax avoidance would allow policymakers to raise the capital gains tax rate and generate increased revenues, without generating as much tax avoidance as would occur with a higher rate under the current system.

A carryover basis regime maintains the practice of taxing capital gains at realization and thus retains the advantages related to investor liquidity and ease of valuation.

Nope, 275 B a year isn't a rounding error. But Warren was also reportedly the famous Native American professor at Harvard, who is reportedly opposed to everyone profiting from foreclosures except her and her husband, and who also reportedly thinks skyrocketing tuition is wrong unless all that wampum flows into her saddlebag.
Makes no difference, and your "wampum" remark is insulting to my Native American heritage.

Rounding error #2
Accrual taxation represents a major break from the current system as a move away from the realization principle, and it has several advantages. It would eliminate the lock-in effect, the use of capital-gains-bearing assets as tax shelters, and most of the incentive to shift labor income into capital gains. Because it restricts avoidance, accrual taxation would allow for a significantly higher tax rate on capital gains without inducing significant avoidance. Accrual taxation brings the tax system in line with the basic definition of income outlined above. It would increase the tax base and thus raise revenues. Using Survey of Consumer Finance data, Batchelder and Kamin calculate that accrual taxation (a) on marketable assets only and (b) limited to the top 1 percent of households would raise $1.7 trillion over ten years, even after allowing for a 15 percent avoidance rate.

I've been on a school board, that is how teacher contracts work.

A principal is an administrator and can't arbitrarily change work rules. That's not how it works.

right. so asking teachers to spend three minutes looking in the hallway, is a big “change to work
rules” when you’re in a union, something they wouldn’t have to ask twice if teachers in a private school.

That’s the difference. It’s a big difference to many people. It’s indicative that public teachers answer to the union, while private school teachers answer to the families they serve, and that difference in mindset, is precisely why private schools are so much better. it’s why people
have disdain for the unions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rounding error #3

Income for the top 20 is 9 Trillion, I'm not looking for the defined numbers

The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains go to the highest income households. In 2018, the top 1 percent of households ranked by income obtained 69 percent of realized long-term capital gains; the top 20 percent received 90 percent of the gains.

the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages, if the asset was held for at least a year before selling. Realized capital gains face a top statutory marginal income tax rate of 20 percent plus a supplemental net investment income tax rate of 3.8 percent, for a combined total of 23.8 percent. Wages face a top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, plus a Medicare tax rate of 2.9 percent and a supplemental tax of 0.9 percent, for a combined rate of 40.8 percent.

right. so asking teachers to spend three minutes looking in the hallway, is a big “change to work
rules” when you’re in a union, something they wouldn’t have to ask twice if teachers in a private school.

That’s the difference. It’s a big difference to many people. It’s indicative that public teachers answer to the union, while private school teachers answer to the families they serve, and that difference in mindset, is precisely why private schools are so much better. it’s why people
have disdain for the unions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not say it was a "big" change.
It's a change, and I suppose I could just tell my insurance company that I want a little more coverage, they wouldn't want compensation.

You seem to think since you work in the private sector, you are entitled to a higher income with less responsibility.

And those who teach should just be grateful for the opportunity and behave correctly.

Rounding error #3

Income for the top 20 is 9 Trillion, I'm not looking for the defined numbers

The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains go to the highest income households. In 2018, the top 1 percent of households ranked by income obtained 69 percent of realized long-term capital gains; the top 20 percent received 90 percent of the gains.

the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages, if the asset was held for at least a year before selling. Realized capital gains face a top statutory marginal income tax rate of 20 percent plus a supplemental net investment income tax rate of 3.8 percent, for a combined total of 23.8 percent. Wages face a top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, plus a Medicare tax rate of 2.9 percent and a supplemental tax of 0.9 percent, for a combined rate of 40.8 percent.

"Income for the top 20 is 9 Trillion, I'm not looking for the defined numbers"

Check your math. Those numbers are wrong. Nobody has income of $450 billion, which is what your math implies. There aren't 20 people whose combined *income* is $9 trillion.

"The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains go to the highest income households. "

Duh! Because they have the most money to invest. Would you pass a law setting a cap for how much someone can invest? If Jeff Bezos invests in the stock market, does that harm you somehow? If those wealthy people took all their money out of the stock market and buried it in their backyards, who would be better off? No one. Absolutely no one. So why do you care?

You're fixated on a small number of uber wealthy people whose wealth may not ne equitable, but it isn't hurting anybody.

I notice that you ALWAYS post how big of a piece of the pie is owned by those at the top, but you NEVER post the share of the total tax burden currently paid by them. Why is that? Answer - the truth doesn't fully support your narrative that they are freeloaders who aren't paying their fair share.

"the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages"

And there's a darn good reason for that...investing involves risk. Lots of risk, many different kinds of risk. It's good if we incentivize people to invest.

I posted a link showing that the top 1% had 20% of the total income, but paid 40% of the total tax. In total, we have a progressive tax system. We can talk about tweaking the rates to make it work better, but we don't have a regressive tax system, not even close. You never, ever include that part. Because you ignore everything which doesn't serve the liberal Narrative.

I don't like the idea of billionaires living near people who can't afford medical care, I hate that. But the math could not be more clear, you can't help large numbers of people by taking more from a small number of zillionaires. Re-distribution is part of the solution obviously, but you also need to give more people at the bottom the tools and the incentive, to lift themselves up. Liberals tend to purposely ignore that part. It's not that hard to do in most cases. A strong family with great parents is 95% of what's needed. Liberals won't admit that, either.

Makes no difference, and your "wampum" remark is insulting to my Native American heritage.

A history of Lies and hypocrisy make a difference to some people. To some people, it impacts the credibility of the liar & hypocrite.

If you're not insulted (and you aren't) that she deliberately appropriated the unfathomable misery your ancestors endured for her own personal gain, then please spare me your fake outrage at my remark. If you give her a pass for what she did (and we all know you do), my remark is nothing. Either it's wrong to exploit Native Americans, or it's OK. But you believe it's ok when liberals do it, and wrong when conservatives do it, and it doesn't work that way, sorry. You have to choose whether it's OK or not, and apply that standard to everyone, or else you don't actually have a principled position.

"Income for the top 20 is 9 Trillion, I'm not looking for the defined numbers"

Check your math. Those numbers are wrong. Nobody has income of $450 billion, which is what your math implies. There aren't 20 people whose combined *income* is $9 trillion.

Oh, You thought 20 people not percent. That would have worked better for you

"The overwhelming majority of realized capital gains go to the highest income households. "

No, because they can take compensation as stock options, etc instead of wages

Duh! Because they have the most money to invest. Would you pass a law setting a cap for how much someone can invest? If Jeff Bezos invests in the stock market, does that harm you somehow? If those wealthy people took all their money out of the stock market and buried it in their backyards, who would be better off? No one. Absolutely no one. So why do you care?

You're fixated on a small number of uber wealthy people whose wealth may not ne equitable, but it isn't hurting anybody.

I notice that you ALWAYS post how big of a piece of the pie is owned by those at the top, but you NEVER post the share of the total tax burden currently paid by them. Why is that? Answer - the truth doesn't fully support your narrative that they are freeloaders who aren't paying their fair share.

"the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages"

And there's a darn good reason for that...investing involves risk. Lots of risk, many different kinds of risk. It's good if we incentivize people to invest.

I posted a link showing that the top 1% had 20% of the total income, but paid 40% of the total tax. In total, we have a progressive tax system. We can talk about tweaking the rates to make it work better, but we don't have a regressive tax system, not even close. You never, ever include that part. Because you ignore everything which doesn't serve the liberal Narrative.

Because you use the figure for income, not total compensation and it skews the numbers. It's done on purpose so you think the tax rate is more progressive than it is.

I don't like the idea of billionaires living near people who can't afford medical care, I hate that. We spend 50% more per capita than anyone else who has universal care, and who gets that money? But the math could not be more clear, you can't help large numbers of people by taking more from a small number of zillionaires. Re-distribution is part of the solution obviously, but you also need to give more people at the bottom the tools and the incentive, to lift themselves up. Liberals tend to purposely ignore that part. It's not that hard to do in most cases. A strong family with great parents is 95% of what's needed. Liberals won't admit that, either.

Conservatives haven't found a way to legislate that yet and plenty of the people they promote aren't great examples.

If a man had five children by three different baby mamas, would that be ok?

Or Rep. Cawthorn who now calls for holy war: “It’s time for us to stand up and declare boldly that, as men & women of faith, we have a duty to stand against tyranny .. It is time for the American Christian church to come out of the shadows .. (against) people who hate the things we believe in.” (He's got a couple of closets also)

Conservatives haven't found a way to legislate that yet and plenty of the people they promote aren't great examples.

If a man had five children by three different baby mamas, would that be ok?

Or Rep. Cawthorn who now calls for holy war: “It’s time for us to stand up and declare boldly that, as men & women of faith, we have a duty to stand against tyranny .. It is time for the American Christian church to come out of the shadows .. (against) people who hate the things we believe in.” (He's got a couple of closets also)

stock options are usually taxed as income, not as capital gains. you’re just making stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives haven't found a way to legislate that yet and plenty of the people they promote aren't great examples.

If a man had five children by three different baby mamas, would that be ok?

Or Rep. Cawthorn who now calls for holy war: “It’s time for us to stand up and declare boldly that, as men & women of faith, we have a duty to stand against tyranny .. It is time for the American Christian church to come out of the shadows .. (against) people who hate the things we believe in.” (He's got a couple of closets also)

who cares if elected republicans aren’t good fathers? does ANYONE look to politicians to see how they should behave?

“stand against tyranny” is a declaration of war?

that’s not a stretch.

Pete, try saying this 100 times…stock options are usually taxed as ordinary income…stock
options are usually taxed as ordinary income…

i got options when i worked at travelers and the hartford. ordinary income.

keep saying it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who cares if elected republicans aren’t good fathers? does ANYONE look to politicians to see how they should behave?

“stand against tyranny” is a declaration of war?

that’s not a stretch.

Pete, try saying this 100 times…stock options are usually taxed as ordinary income…stock
options are usually taxed as ordinary income…

i got options when i worked at travelers and the hartford. ordinary income.

keep saying it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans aren’t good at anything but saying saying no and are all generally dishonest and crazy hypocritical.. and please spare us the both sides do it .. Nonesense

And willingness to tank the economy for political gain by refusing to raise the Debt ceiling.. a game that moderates and independents see as reckless and hypocritical and most of the country . Only the MAGA base see it as owning the libs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You already stated that you require nothing moral about your leaders, political or other.

Steve Bannon’s ‘shock troops.’ Madison Cawthorn’s ‘holy war.’ Schools requiring the teaching of only ‘patriotic education.’ ‘Alternative facts’ We are well down the rabbit hole towards a fascist America. None of this is normal.

Your boss the almost billionaire, takes stock options because they are just like cash, OK
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pandora Papers show how tax havens are part of the global inequity problem

The massive leak shows wealthy individuals from all over the world parking money in Caribbean tax havens, hiding assets in foreign trusts and shielding their wealth in opaque Panamanian corporations

While prominent Americans largely escaped the investigation’s gaze, the United States itself did not, as researchers found that the US now serves as an overseas tax haven for many.


Experts told NPR that the US’ low tax rates (compared to other developed nations) contributed to the findings, which indicated that some Americans simply found no need to stash money abroad; others were found to be likely using companies whose finances were not revealed in the latest batch of documents.

And some Americans still use the same methods to hide assets when under investigation or facing lawsuits,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans aren’t good at anything but saying saying no and are all generally dishonest and crazy hypocritical.. and please spare us the both sides do it .. Nonesense

And willingness to tank the economy for political gain by refusing to raise the Debt ceiling.. a game that moderates and independents see as reckless and hypocritical and most of the country . Only the MAGA base see it as owning the libs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Republicans aren’t good at anything but saying saying no and are all generally dishonest and crazy hypocritical.. and please spare us the both sides do it"

Stupid. Conservatives are actually a little more charitable than liberals, the data makes that crystal clear. Tell the unborn the GOP isn't good for anything...And which states are losing population, which states are gaining population? Which states have the largest debt? I'd like to see you attempt to answer that.

"And willingness to tank the economy for political gain by refusing to raise the Debt ceiling"

That's pure hypocrisy. But sorry to say it, both sides only care about the dangers of debt when the other party controls the white house.

Pandora Papers show how tax havens are part of the global inequity problem

The massive leak shows wealthy individuals from all over the world parking money in Caribbean tax havens, hiding assets in foreign trusts and shielding their wealth in opaque Panamanian corporations

While prominent Americans largely escaped the investigation’s gaze, the United States itself did not, as researchers found that the US now serves as an overseas tax haven for many.


Experts told NPR that the US’ low tax rates (compared to other developed nations) contributed to the findings, which indicated that some Americans simply found no need to stash money abroad; others were found to be likely using companies whose finances were not revealed in the latest batch of documents.

And some Americans still use the same methods to hide assets when under investigation or facing lawsuits,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"some Americans simply found no need to stash money abroad;"

Would you be better off if more Americans stashed their money abroad? How would that help you, or poor people, exactly?

"some Americans simply found no need to stash money abroad;"

Would you be better off if more Americans stashed their money abroad? How would that help you, or poor people, exactly?

if not for the guy stashing money in panama or wherever...the guy working at McDonalds would be filthy rich....

amazing how obsessed some are with other people's money, assets, success.....

if only we could institute global communism to combat this global inequity...

gotta give the chinese credit for coming up with the idea to spread global communism through a pandemic by creating a nasty virus...pretty brilliant and working fabulously

and your "wampum" remark is insulting to my Native American heritage.



idiot

We are well down the rabbit hole towards a fascist America. None of this is normal.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who is more fascist?....the people that want everyone locked down, injected, masked and requiring papers everywhere they go and unquestioned obedience to the federal government and their directives, want to know every time 600 dollars enters or leaves your bank account, collude with big tech and the media and corporations censor information and to push government narratives and propoganda ....or the people who don't?

Republicans aren’t good at anything but saying saying no and are all generally dishonest and crazy hypocritical.. and please spare us the both sides do it .. Nonesense


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2:

we are so fortunate to be led by moral, honest democrats who only do what is in our best interest...true public servants :smash:

who is more fascist?....the people that want everyone locked down, injected, masked and requiring papers everywhere they go and unquestioned obedience to the federal government and their directives, want to know every time 600 dollars enters or leaves your bank account, collude with big tech and the media and corporations censor information and to push government narratives and propoganda ....or the people who don't?

What we could have: masks+vaccination=freedom

What we got: FOX/GOP fighting against masks and vaccines, causing the need for longer restrictions and more mandates, so they can keep their followers angry about Dems attacking their freedom

Steve Bannon said the other morning he will have 20K "shock troops" on standby. "We control this country," he added. "We have to start acting like it."

Throughout the federal deployment to Portland, officers from the Federal Protective Services requested assistance from the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Identities Targeting and Exploitation Center to search protesters’ cellphones. That team found the searches were illegal, and resisted pressure from senior Homeland Security leaders to assist FPS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if not for the guy stashing money in panama or wherever...the guy working at McDonalds would be filthy rich....

amazing how obsessed some are with other people's money, assets, success.....

if only we could institute global communism to combat this global inequity...

gotta give the chinese credit for coming up with the idea to spread global communism through a pandemic by creating a nasty virus...pretty brilliant and working fabulously

Obsessed not, but if I were still working and paying high taxes, I’d be a bit pissed someone with millions or billions is paying almost nothing.

:rotf2:

we are so fortunate to be led by moral, honest democrats who only do what is in our best interest...true public servants :smash:

That’s rich, Trump was as we all know always on the moral high ground and never thinking about what’s good for him and his family.:lm:

That’s rich, Trump was as we all know always on the moral high ground and never thinking about what’s good for him and his family.:lm:



pretty sure no one here has ever suggested he was on the high moral ground and not thinking about what's good for him and his family...

keep arguing with yourself :laugha:

but if I were still working and paying high taxes
so you think taxes are too high?


I’d be a bit pissed someone with millions or billions is paying almost nothing.



name one....define almost nothing

What we could have: masks+vaccination=freedom

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:eek:

What we got: FOX/GOP fighting against masks and vaccines, causing the need for longer restrictions and more mandates,

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are working world wide apparently....

who is more fascist?....the people that want everyone locked down, injected, masked and requiring papers everywhere they go and unquestioned obedience to the federal government and their directives, want to know every time 600 dollars enters or leaves your bank account, collude with big tech and the media and corporations censor information and to push government narratives and propoganda ....or the people who don't?


Wow nice rant Q

Deposits or withdrawalsOver $10,000 Are reported not 600
Please get informed
The only unquestionably obedience I’ve seen has been The Trump MAGA cult. The guy you didn’t vote for but support with out question

And back to the press and FB is the enemy of the people colluding only with Dems.. so much for Parler

Parler’s Popularity Plummets As Data Reveals Little Appetite For Returning ‘Free Speech’ App Favored By Conservatives Forbes

Parler active users 2.3 mil active
Twitter 206 million snap chat 347 million TikTok has reached 1 billion

Conservatives are a dying breed unable to accept they are in the minority in America being saved by the electoral college and how the Senator are appointed . And Americans are paying attention to their obstructing ways .

But I thought conservatives love Israel they have a vaccine passport
They must be fascists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:eek:

Bans + Mandates = Not Freedom
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if not for the guy stashing money in panama or wherever...the guy working at McDonalds would be filthy rich....

amazing how obsessed some are with other people's money, assets, success.....

if only we could institute global communism to combat this global inequity...

gotta give the chinese credit for coming up with the idea to spread global communism through a pandemic by creating a nasty virus...pretty brilliant and working fabulously

"if not for the guy stashing money in panama or wherever...the guy working at McDonalds would be filthy rich...."

How do you debate someone who thinks it's bad that people are incentivized to park their cash in our country, as opposed to storing it in Grand Cayman?

when you spend your whole life in the public sector, and all you do is listen without question to MSNBC, I guess you conclude that all business is sinister, and that we don't want Pablo Escobar's money here, and no one who works in the private sector is any better, therefore we shouldn't want any of it.

"amazing how obsessed some are with other people's money, assets, success...."

It's so much easier to demonize the successful, than it is to just admit it's more likely they worked harder, made better decisions, took more chances, etc...and of course sometimes they're just luckier, and sometimes they're unethical. But not much of the time.

"gotta give the chinese credit for coming up with the idea to spread global communism through a pandemic by creating a nasty virus."

Aided by gain-of-research function that was almost certainly funded by Fauci.

Obsessed not, but if I were still working and paying high taxes, I’d be a bit pissed someone with millions or billions is paying almost nothing.

The top 1% have 20% of the total income, and pay 40% of the total federal income tax, as of 2018.

"paying almost nothing**"

** - in which 1% of the population shouldering 40% of the tax burden, is "almost nothing".

Obama had deomcrats in control of congress, as Biden does now. If the tax system is so unfair, why don't they change it? Obama had a fillibuster-proof democrat majority in the senate, and a large democrat majority in the house, for some of his first term. He could have fixed this in a day.

Its all BS to distract the herd from the truth. If you're unhappy with your lot in life, the problem is much more likely to be in the mirror, than it is to be some guy on the cover of Forbes.

Wow nice rant Q THANKS!

Deposits or withdrawalsOver $10,000

Are reported not 600

Please get informed

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's coming...apparently you are not informed:wave:

Yes, under Biden's proposal the IRS could have more access to your bank accounts
If you have at least $600 in your account, the IRS could end up monitoring your spending. It’s part of President Biden's proposed tax reform and is raising concerns.

NBC IRS would track all bank transactions over $600 under Biden plan
by Kenneth McGrathTuesday, September 28th 2021

MOBILE COUNTY, Ala. (WPMI) —

The administration wants the Internal Revenue Service to monitor every transaction you make of $600 or more, that’s a big change from the current 10,000 threshold. Meanwhile, Bloomberg.com reports that House Ways & Means Chairman Richard Neal said he and other democratic leaders are planning to set a threshold higher than the $600 proposed by the Biden administration.

What we could have: masks+vaccination=freedom

What we got: FOX/GOP fighting against masks and vaccines, causing the need for longer restrictions and more mandates, so they can keep their followers angry about Dems attacking their freedom

Steve Bannon said the other morning he will have 20K "shock troops" on standby. "We control this country," he added. "We have to start acting like it."

Throughout the federal deployment to Portland, officers from the Federal Protective Services requested assistance from the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Identities Targeting and Exploitation Center to search protesters’ cellphones. That team found the searches were illegal, and resisted pressure from senior Homeland Security leaders to assist FPS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What we got: FOX/GOP fighting against masks and vaccines,"

So why are some of the largest unvaccinated populations, blacks and those with PhD's? Those people take their marching orders from Foxnews?

"What we could have: masks+vaccination=freedom"

Tell that to Connecticut College students, who have a 100% vaccination rate, and are in a complete lockdown.

Conservatives are a dying breed unable to accept they are in the minority in America being saved by the electoral college and how the Senator are appointed . And Americans are paying attention to their obstructing ways .


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you base this on? What support for that crap could you possibly provide?

If the electoral college is the only thing saving the GOP, please explain why Republicans currently have a majority of governorships and state legislatures? Lemme guess, it’s all because of racist gerrymandering.

When Obama left office as recently as 2016, the Democrats held fewer elected offices (federal, state, local) than at any time sine Reconstruction. That's mathematical fact. Back then, did you say the democrats were on the way out?

So why are some of the largest unvaccinated populations, blacks and those with PhD's?

don't forget police, fire and healthcare workers...and teachers

don't forget police, fire and healthcare workers...and teachers

what reasons are healthcare workers giving, for not getting vaccinated? i haven’t seen any facts in why…
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What we could have: masks+vaccination=freedom


War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

The administration wants the Internal Revenue Service to monitor every transaction you make of $600 or more, that’s a big change from the current 10,000 threshold.
Not true.

Not true.

I think might be right...it's actually even worse

"What we got: FOX/GOP fighting against masks and vaccines,"

So why are some of the largest unvaccinated populations, blacks and those with PhD's? Those people take their marching orders from Foxnews?

Are you trying to say Foxnews should not be listened to by anyone who is a minority or educated?


"What we could have: masks+vaccination=freedom"

Tell that to Connecticut College students, who have a 100% vaccination rate, and are in a complete lockdown.

Lying again, I see
Connecticut College is not locked down, is following the Covid Protocol.
https://www.conncoll.edu/campus-life/student-health-services/coronavirus/covid-19-dashboard/

The top 1% have 20% of the total income, and pay 40% of the total federal income tax, as of 2018.

"paying almost nothing**"

** - in which 1% of the population shouldering 40% of the tax burden, is "almost nothing".

Obama had deomcrats in control of congress, as Biden does now. If the tax system is so unfair, why don't they change it? Obama had a fillibuster-proof democrat majority in the senate, and a large democrat majority in the house, for some of his first term. He could have fixed this in a day.

Its all BS to distract the herd from the truth. If you're unhappy with your lot in life, the problem is much more likely to be in the mirror, than it is to be some guy on the cover of Forbes.

So they pay less than 4% and your paying 35%, oh that seems fair right?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

You and Bannon are Leninists, oops that's true

Lying again, I see
Connecticut College is not locked down, is following the Covid Protocol.
https://www.conncoll.edu/campus-life/student-health-services/coronavirus/covid-19-dashboard/

I'm saying blacks and college professors are a very democratic group, so they aren't refusing the vaccine because foxnews tells them to. Too fast for you?

"Connecticut College is not locked down"

OK, YOU SAID masks + vaccines = freedom.

No in person classrooms, kids can only be in their dorm with roomates (no one else), cafeterias closed, gym closed, sports and clubs cancelled. For $80,000 a year.

If that's your idea of freedom, then you can embrace that all you want, but most of us will take a hard pass, thanks.

You're missing the point Jim, it's not a lock-down if you call it "Covid Protocols"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're missing the point Jim, it's not a lock-down if you call it "Covid Protocols"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Silly me.

I have 2 friends who mortgaged their house to send their daughter to that school (and I have two brothers who graduated from there). Liberal like you can't believe. She can't go to class, eat with anyone, have anyone in her room except her roommate, can't go to anyone else's room, can't join a club or go to a sporting event.

Every single kid and employee is vaccinated, and they're testing everyone weekly. So naturally, there are some positive test cases, but no one is sick. The school is freaking out over the number of test cases, maybe someone told them that vaccinated people can't get covid, which isn't remotely true.

We need to stop trying to manage the number of positive test cases (which likely can't be stopped with this virus), and concentrate on minimizing the number of people who get really sick.

Hope you're doing well.

You're missing the point Jim, it's not a lock-down if you call it "Covid Protocols"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp", it was a re-education center.

Lying again, I see
Connecticut College is not locked down, is following the Covid Protocol.
https://www.conncoll.edu/campus-life/student-health-services/coronavirus/covid-19-dashboard/

"Are you trying to say Foxnews should not be listened to by anyone who is a minority or educated?"

Oh, we all know that the best thing for blacks would be to listen to what thoughtful conservatives say on Foxnews. Unfortunately, they don't.

The last thing democrats want, is for poor folks to hear someone rationally explain that the path to upward economic mobility doesn't lie with demonizing rich people, but rather lies in strong family and hard work and good decision-making. Democrats desperately want to hide that message from blacks, because if more blacks embraced that, they wouldn't feel the need to vote for democrats.

You and Bannon are Leninists, oops that's true

Not quite right--it's spelled lennonists. Here's an old fashioned precursor of the Alt Right, Norwegian white supremacist ditty just for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK99-mLWkjA

Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp", it was a re-education center.

If only 100,00 died and these mandates were in play I’d agree it’s extreme and unwarranted, but it’s now over 700,000 dead and it’s not over, so whine all you want. Hey don’t vaccinate your kids Home school them, drive your hog in mass without a helmet, screw paying the evil government taxes to fund the new order, light up a cigarette in your office and have all the freedom you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not quite right--it's spelled lennonists. Here's an old fashioned precursor of the Alt Right, Norwegian white supremacist ditty just for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK99-mLWkjA

The American Right’s “21st-century Leninism”

The dismissal of Steve Bannon — leading intellectual of the US alt-right — before the first anniversary of Trump’s presidency comes as false relief. In fact, Bannon’s White House adventure was only one stage of a long journey — the migration of revolutionary-populist language, tactics, and strategies from the left to the right. Bannon has reportedly said: “I’m a Leninist. Lenin … wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” But what does this Leninism consist of? In a complex democracy, Leninism can only maintain itself as a populism of the long revolution. For decades, social science has insisted that due to entrenched institutions, no third party can succeed in the US. This very “scientific fact” has enabled a smug self-certainty among liberal leftists and autonomists/anarchists (who find therein further justification for, respectively, their subservience to neoliberalism and evasion of organized politics). The American far right has subverted this “fact.” It was as if they were following directions from a 21st-century, condensed version of Lenin’s (1902) What is to Be Done?, starting with the sentence: “If you can’t build a party, paralyze the party; circumvent it; and take it over.” They did all three simultaneously. Our imaginary, revised What is to Be Done? would then continue: “Before you become the de jure leaders of the party, make sure all of its institutions are crippled.” If the Tea Party (a populist grouping among Republicans) had not already paralyzed the Republican establishment, the latter would have been able to stop Trump’s rise.

American right-wing populism is Leninism under democratic conditions. Unlike the Russian Bolsheviks who had to avoid almost all above-ground society and politics, American rightists embrace society. The revised What is to Be Done? would therefore say: “Organize in every cell of society. Don’t underestimate any venue of organization and politics, even if (especially if) it seems to belong to the enemy camp.” The right learned not to leave education, science, and culture to the monopoly of the left. “Appropriate the organizational terrain and ideology of your enemy, to the extent possible. Dismantle whatever you fail to appropriate.” Starting with Andrew Breitbart himself, the founder of the “alt-right” media outlet, the right read the Frankfurt School; it made healthcare a big deal; and with the rise of Trump and Bannon, it promises jobs and infrastructure.

Today the Leninist Right cannot ignore the existence of other potentially populist forces on the social map, however meager they may be. The 21st-century What is to Be Done? would thus conclude with the sentence: “If certain trenches of the enemy appear to be beyond the reach of any of these tactics, provoke its occupants into immature and illegitimate action.” As the alt-right descended on the University of California, Berkeley and other pockets of residual left-wing influence in early 2017, liberals came to their defense (in the name of “free speech”) when a far left without a mass base attacked them. Liberal enthusiasm for “free speech” diminished slightly after an alt-rightist drove a truck into an anti-racist crowd in Charlottesville, but the Washington Post still emphasized far left violence and the alt-right’s freedoms when the latter returned to Berkeley in September 2017. Many birds are killed with one stone: the enemy is divided; its confusion, lack of will, and weakness are exposed; its reputation is tarnished; and the far right itself is further galvanized.

Since “the state” today is more complex than any 20th-century definition could capture, “smashing” it involves much less dramatic action than in 1917, at least for now. We still don’t know what the right holds in store for the time when the existing institutions are completely incapacitated, but we may soon find out. Right after his resignation, Steve Bannon declared “war” on his enemies, adding gleefully that he is returning to his “weapons” (meaning electronic media). A populist revolution in a land of entrenched (if decaying) liberalism is an uphill battle, and is bound to suffer setbacks. But the show is far from over.

"Are you trying to say Foxnews should not be listened to by anyone who is a minority or educated?"

Oh, we all know that the best thing for blacks would be to listen to what thoughtful conservatives say on Foxnews. Unfortunately, they don't.

The last thing democrats want, is for poor folks to hear someone rationally explain that the path to upward economic mobility doesn't lie with demonizing rich people, but rather lies in strong family and hard work and good decision-making. Democrats desperately want to hide that message from blacks, because if more blacks embraced that, they wouldn't feel the need to vote for democrats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o0Z-RooQ8E

You're missing the point Jim, it's not a lock-down if you call it "Covid Protocols"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp", it was a re-education center.

October first was the day compulsory indoor masking ended in Portugal. An 85% vaccination rate pays off.

The moronavirus is the most dangerous variant of all.

Keep believing boys, we will get to a million yet.

A history of Lies and hypocrisy make a difference to some people. To some people, it impacts the credibility of the liar & hypocrite.

If you're not insulted (and you aren't) that she deliberately appropriated the unfathomable misery your ancestors endured for her own personal gain, then please spare me your fake outrage at my remark. If you give her a pass for what she did (and we all know you do), my remark is nothing. Either it's wrong to exploit Native Americans, or it's OK. But you believe it's ok when liberals do it, and wrong when conservatives do it, and it doesn't work that way, sorry. You have to choose whether it's OK or not, and apply that standard to everyone, or else you don't actually have a principled position.
I actually am offended by your mocking her, as I am when Trump calls her Pocahontas. Generally speaking I don't think people should claim heritage unless they are quite sure (In my case I have a tribe ID) but I've never seen anything that she gained unfairly from it. Stupid but not earth shattering. The mortgage foreclosure thing also has been blown way out of proportion as well.

If only 100,00 died and these mandates were in play I’d agree it’s extreme and unwarranted, but it’s now over 700,000 dead and it’s not over, so whine all you want. Hey drive your hog in mass without a helmet, screw paying the evil government taxes to fund the new order, lidon’t vaccinate your kids Home school them,ght up a cigarette in your office and have all the freedom you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My 15 year old is vaccinated, so are my wife and I, I'm totally on board with the vaccine. All the data I've seen, say vaccines are effective at reducing the risk of getting seriously sick from covid. I don't see evidence that the vaccines are a great shield against getting covid.

"it’s not over"

My point is, if "over" means no one can get covid anymore, then it will probably never be over. Never. You know how many viruses have effectively been eliminated? Any idea? One. O-N-E. 1. Smallpox.

So we need to ask ourselves how much of what constitutes a normal childhood, are we willing to deny our children, for what may be no real benefit? We're probably all going to get covid at some point, maybe more than once, like the flu.

"don’t vaccinate your kids Home school them, drive your hog in mass without a helmet, screw paying the evil government taxes to fund the new order, light up a cigarette in your office and have all the freedom you want."

Yup, that's exactly what I said.

It's a very common tactic among stupid people with a weak argument, to ignore what the person winning the argument actually said, and respond instead to something that I never came close to saying. When I'm debating someone who acts like I said something I never came close to saying, that means I won.

Show me any large population of healthy, vaccinated people, and I guarantee that if you test all of them, many will test positive and don't feel sick. That's how this disease works. Huge numbers of people get it, very few get seriously sick.

Amazing. The side you support has no problem locking down healthy vaccinated people, but show zero concern when thousands of unvaccinated, untested illegals cross our border daily, and end up in our cities and towns.

Here, according to all the right-wing nuts at NBC news, 18% of illegal migrants tested, tested positive for covid. Almost 1 out of 5. And Democrats adamantly deny that there's any reason to be concerned that more than 150,000 illegals a month cross the southern border.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/18-percent-migrant-families-leaving-border-patrol-custody-tested-positive-n1276244

I actually am offended by your mocking her, as I am when Trump calls her Pocahontas. Generally speaking I don't think people should claim heritage unless they are quite sure (In my case I have a tribe ID) but I've never seen anything that she gained unfairly from it. Stupid but not earth shattering. The mortgage foreclosure thing also has been blown way out of proportion as well.

If you actually had any principle (other than democrat=good, republican=bad), you'd be furious at what she did.

"I've never seen anything that she gained unfairly from it."

Harvard touted her widely as their first Native American law professor.

She exploited the genuine suffering of your people, in order to land a $400,000-a-year-job.

Every single person here, knows you'd be singing a different tune, if a Republican did what she did. Because your only principle, which I have never once seen you deviate from here, is that the democrat is always, always right.

I would honestly pay good money to hook you up to a polygraph, ask you if she lied for financial gain, hear you say "no", and see what the machine says. In other words, do even you believe the nonsense that you post here?

"The mortgage foreclosure thing also has been blown way out of proportion as well"

She excoriated banks for foreclosing. Yet she and her husband bought and flipped foreclosures. So it's only OK when she does it.

Then there's her whopper about getting fired form a school job for being pregnant (poor little lamb, so victimized by the evil men), when there's paperwork that she quit and the school board asked her to stay.

But you can't call her out for any of it, because she's a democrat.

Me think-um she want to dwell in house of Great White Chief. Ugh.

it's coming...apparently you are not informed:wave:

Yes, under Biden's proposal the IRS could have more access to your bank accounts
If you have at least $600 in your account, the IRS could end up monitoring your spending. It’s part of President Biden's proposed tax reform and is raising concerns.

NBC IRS would track all bank transactions over $600 under Biden plan
by Kenneth McGrathTuesday, September 28th 2021

MOBILE COUNTY, Ala. (WPMI) —

The administration wants the Internal Revenue Service to monitor every transaction you make of $600 or more, that’s a big change from the current 10,000 threshold. Meanwhile, Bloomberg.com reports that House Ways & Means Chairman Richard Neal said he and other democratic leaders are planning to set a threshold higher than the $600 proposed by the Biden administration.

Wants? is that your bases on facts what people want? Not what actually exists…. You seem focused on feeling not actually Facts it’s not all that surprising


The great American tax haven: why the super-rich love South Dakota

last year, as the Chinese government prepared to enact tough new tax rules, the billionaire Sun Hongbin quietly transferred $4.5bn worth of shares in his Chinese real estate firm to a company on a street corner in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, one of the least populated and least known states in the US. Sioux Falls is a pleasant city of 180,000 people, situated where the Big Sioux River tumbles off a red granite cliff. It has some decent bars downtown, and a charming array of sculptures dotting the streets, but there doesn’t seem to be much to attract a Chinese multi-billionaire. It’s a town that even few Americans have been to.

The money of the world’s mega-wealthy, though, is heading there in ever-larger volumes. In the past decade, hundreds of billions of dollars have poured out of traditional offshore jurisdictions such as Switzerland and Jersey, and into a small number of American states: Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming – and, above all, South Dakota. “To some, South Dakota is a ‘fly-over’ state,” the chief justice of the state’s supreme court said in a speech to the legislature in January. “While many people may find a way to ‘fly over’ South Dakota, somehow their dollars find a way to land here.”

But spending 3.5 bill over 10 years is suddenly outrageous
the Department of Defense's discretionary budget authority is approximately $705.39 billion ($705,390,000,000). Mandatory spending of $10.77 billion, the Department of Energy and defense-related spending of $37.335 billion added up to the total FY2021 Defense budget of $753.5 billion.

Republicans love to say American 1st but only if that money goes to their donors .. not to helping actual Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/18-percent-migrant-families-leaving-border-patrol-custody-tested-positive-n1276244[/url]

Jim is now selling the lie that the Covid spike is cause by illegals classic.

Jim you like most other spoon fed conservatives think apprehension equals entry to the United States

U.S. border arrests top 1 million in fiscal year 2021 Yet all the hospitals are filled with nonvaccinated people not immigrants

A total of 11,445 refugees were allowed into the United States during the budget year that ended on Thursday, 2021

Some invasion! now let hear the argument what about the ones they didn’t catch! Yes what about them anyone have a number ? Love to hear it and see the source
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim is now selling the lie that the Covid spike is cause by illegals classic.

Jim you like most other spoon fed conservatives think apprehension equals entry to the United States

U.S. border arrests top 1 million in fiscal year 2021 Yet all the hospitals are filled with nonvaccinated people not immigrants

A total of 11,445 refugees were allowed into the United States during the budget year that ended on Thursday, 2021

Some invasion! now let hear the argument what about the ones they didn’t catch! Yes what about them anyone have a number ? Love to hear it and see the source
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim is now selling the lie that the Covid spike is cause by illegals classic. "

Again, you're hearing voices. I never said "the" spike is caused by illegals. There's only one reason why people respond to something not even close to what one says, it's because you know you can't respond to what I'm actually saying.

Here's what I said:

Democrats claim to be concerned about minimizing covid, yet they say it's not a problem that 150,000 illegals cross each month, when almost 30,000 of those may have covid.

If democrats refuse to concede that 30,000 covid-positive people coming across monthly isn't any cause for concern, then I don't see how you can claim to take covid seriously.

That's what I said. See if you can avoid responding with "Jim said we should return to slavery...".

Try to respond to what I actually said. Not to what the voices in your head are telling you I said.

"all the hospitals are filled with nonvaccinated people not immigrants "

I didn't say they're filling the hospitals. I said thousands cross daily, and the data suggests that almost 1 in 5 have covid. That's not a potential problem?

"A total of 11,445 refugees were allowed into the United States during the budget year that ended on Thursday, 2021 "

I said illegal migrants, not legal refugees. No clue why the number of refugees matters at all.

Here, those right-wing nuts at the Washington Post say that in July, the Border Patrol had encounters with 200,000 illegals in the month. That's just the count of the ones Border Patrol came across - 200,000 in a month.

The data shows that 1 in 5 have covid.

No reason for ANY concern with those numbers?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/record-numbers-illegal-border-crossings/2021/08/12/e3d305e2-facd-11eb-b8dd-0e376fba55f2_story.html

"Jim you like most other spoon fed conservatives think apprehension equals entry to the United States "

OK, How many do you suppose are entering the US per month?

"U.S. border arrests top 1 million in fiscal year 2021"

Are you saying we arrest those people, without them entering the United States? How do we do that?

In my ignorance, I though the arrest and processing took place within the United States.

I'm not saying every one of them gets to stay here forever. But all of them are here for some time, some are here for quite awhile, some are here for years.

Wants? is that your bases on facts what people want? Not what actually exists…. You seem focused on feeling not actually Facts it’s not all that surprising


The great American tax haven: why the super-rich love South Dakota

last year, as the Chinese government prepared to enact tough new tax rules, the billionaire Sun Hongbin quietly transferred $4.5bn worth of shares in his Chinese real estate firm to a company on a street corner in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, one of the least populated and least known states in the US. Sioux Falls is a pleasant city of 180,000 people, situated where the Big Sioux River tumbles off a red granite cliff. It has some decent bars downtown, and a charming array of sculptures dotting the streets, but there doesn’t seem to be much to attract a Chinese multi-billionaire. It’s a town that even few Americans have been to.

The money of the world’s mega-wealthy, though, is heading there in ever-larger volumes. In the past decade, hundreds of billions of dollars have poured out of traditional offshore jurisdictions such as Switzerland and Jersey, and into a small number of American states: Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming – and, above all, South Dakota. “To some, South Dakota is a ‘fly-over’ state,” the chief justice of the state’s supreme court said in a speech to the legislature in January. “While many people may find a way to ‘fly over’ South Dakota, somehow their dollars find a way to land here.”

But spending 3.5 bill over 10 years is suddenly outrageous
the Department of Defense's discretionary budget authority is approximately $705.39 billion ($705,390,000,000). Mandatory spending of $10.77 billion, the Department of Energy and defense-related spending of $37.335 billion added up to the total FY2021 Defense budget of $753.5 billion.

Republicans love to say American 1st but only if that money goes to their donors .. not to helping actual Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please try to answer this question...

why should you care if a Chinese billionaire (unless he's a criminal) puts his money in a South Dakota bank?

See if you can follow...

In order for banks to make loans, they need to have deposits. Generally speaking, it's good for banks to have people deposit money with them.

Every post of yours is a direct assault on economic reality.

Republicans love to say American 1st but only if that money goes to their donors .. not to helping actual Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh. But when democrats propose tax credits to cars that are made at union shops, when those credits don't apply to non-union shops...that's NOT democrats giving money to their donors? That's not democrats rewarding unions for campaign contributions?

Are you saying that people who make cars for TESLA aren't "actual Americans"? People who work at Ford are more American than people who work for TESLA?

I would love to see your response to THAT.

"it’s not over"

My point is, if "over" means no one can get covid anymore, then it will probably never be over. Never. You know how many viruses have effectively been eliminated? Any idea? One. O-N-E. 1. Smallpox.



It's a very common tactic among stupid people with a weak argument, to ignore what the person winning the argument actually said, and respond instead to something that I never came close to saying. When I'm debating someone who acts like I said something I never came close to saying, that means I won.



We have largely eradicated Polio, tetanus, Flu, Hepatitis A+B, Rubella, Hib, Measles, Pertussis, Rotavirus, Mumps, Chickenpox, Diphtheria and Pneumococcal Disease and completely eradicated smallpox and rinderpest. Widespread vaccination is responsible for that.

My 15 year old is vaccinated, so are my wife and I, I'm totally on board with the vaccine. All the data I've seen, say vaccines are effective at reducing the risk of getting seriously sick from covid. I don't see evidence that the vaccines are a great shield against getting covid.

"it’s not over"

My point is, if "over" means no one can get covid anymore, then it will probably never be over. Never. You know how many viruses have effectively been eliminated? Any idea? One. O-N-E. 1. Smallpox.

So we need to ask ourselves how much of what constitutes a normal childhood, are we willing to deny our children, for what may be no real benefit? We're probably all going to get covid at some point, maybe more than once, like the flu.

"don’t vaccinate your kids Home school them, drive your hog in mass without a helmet, screw paying the evil government taxes to fund the new order, light up a cigarette in your office and have all the freedom you want."

Yup, that's exactly what I said.

It's a very common tactic among stupid people with a weak argument, to ignore what the person winning the argument actually said, and respond instead to something that I never came close to saying. When I'm debating someone who acts like I said something I never came close to saying, that means I won.

Show me any large population of healthy, vaccinated people, and I guarantee that if you test all of them, many will test positive and don't feel sick. That's how this disease works. Huge numbers of people get it, very few get seriously sick.

Amazing. The side you support has no problem locking down healthy vaccinated people, but show zero concern when thousands of unvaccinated, untested illegals cross our border daily, and end up in our cities and towns.

Here, according to all the right-wing nuts at NBC news, 18% of illegal migrants tested, tested positive for covid. Almost 1 out of 5. And Democrats adamantly deny that there's any reason to be concerned that more than 150,000 illegals a month cross the southern border.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/18-percent-migrant-families-leaving-border-patrol-custody-tested-positive-n1276244

Keep believing you have the winning argument haha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Harvard touted her widely as their first Native American law professor.
I believe she was listed once in a diversity report but not by name.

She exploited the genuine suffering of your people, in order to land a $400,000-a-year-job.
The two people at Harvard who recommended her for the job said they had no idea she thought she was a Native American and she was hired solely on her professional qualifications.

She excoriated banks for foreclosing. Yet she and her husband bought and flipped foreclosures. So it's only OK when she does it.
She didn't flip a single foreclosure Jim.

Then there's her whopper about getting fired form a school job for being pregnant (poor little lamb, so victimized by the evil men), when there's paperwork that she quit and the school board asked her to stay.
I looked into this one, seems like it's based off some school meeting minutes that were months before she would have been visible pregnant. Certainly doesn't invalidate her story.

Me think-um she want to dwell in house of Great White Chief. Ugh.
Pathetic.

The American Right’s “21st-century Leninism”

The dismissal of Steve Bannon — leading intellectual of the US alt-right — before the first anniversary of Trump’s presidency comes as false relief. In fact, Bannon’s White House adventure was only one stage of a long journey — the migration of revolutionary-populist language, tactics, and strategies from the left to the right. Bannon has reportedly said: “I’m a Leninist. Lenin … wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” But what does this Leninism consist of? In a complex democracy, Leninism can only maintain itself as a populism of the long revolution. For decades, social science has insisted that due to entrenched institutions, no third party can succeed in the US. This very “scientific fact” has enabled a smug self-certainty among liberal leftists and autonomists/anarchists (who find therein further justification for, respectively, their subservience to neoliberalism and evasion of organized politics). The American far right has subverted this “fact.” It was as if they were following directions from a 21st-century, condensed version of Lenin’s (1902) What is to Be Done?, starting with the sentence: “If you can’t build a party, paralyze the party; circumvent it; and take it over.” They did all three simultaneously. Our imaginary, revised What is to Be Done? would then continue: “Before you become the de jure leaders of the party, make sure all of its institutions are crippled.” If the Tea Party (a populist grouping among Republicans) had not already paralyzed the Republican establishment, the latter would have been able to stop Trump’s rise.

American right-wing populism is Leninism under democratic conditions. Unlike the Russian Bolsheviks who had to avoid almost all above-ground society and politics, American rightists embrace society. The revised What is to Be Done? would therefore say: “Organize in every cell of society. Don’t underestimate any venue of organization and politics, even if (especially if) it seems to belong to the enemy camp.” The right learned not to leave education, science, and culture to the monopoly of the left. “Appropriate the organizational terrain and ideology of your enemy, to the extent possible. Dismantle whatever you fail to appropriate.” Starting with Andrew Breitbart himself, the founder of the “alt-right” media outlet, the right read the Frankfurt School; it made healthcare a big deal; and with the rise of Trump and Bannon, it promises jobs and infrastructure.

Today the Leninist Right cannot ignore the existence of other potentially populist forces on the social map, however meager they may be. The 21st-century What is to Be Done? would thus conclude with the sentence: “If certain trenches of the enemy appear to be beyond the reach of any of these tactics, provoke its occupants into immature and illegitimate action.” As the alt-right descended on the University of California, Berkeley and other pockets of residual left-wing influence in early 2017, liberals came to their defense (in the name of “free speech”) when a far left without a mass base attacked them. Liberal enthusiasm for “free speech” diminished slightly after an alt-rightist drove a truck into an anti-racist crowd in Charlottesville, but the Washington Post still emphasized far left violence and the alt-right’s freedoms when the latter returned to Berkeley in September 2017. Many birds are killed with one stone: the enemy is divided; its confusion, lack of will, and weakness are exposed; its reputation is tarnished; and the far right itself is further galvanized.

Since “the state” today is more complex than any 20th-century definition could capture, “smashing” it involves much less dramatic action than in 1917, at least for now. We still don’t know what the right holds in store for the time when the existing institutions are completely incapacitated, but we may soon find out. Right after his resignation, Steve Bannon declared “war” on his enemies, adding gleefully that he is returning to his “weapons” (meaning electronic media). A populist revolution in a land of entrenched (if decaying) liberalism is an uphill battle, and is bound to suffer setbacks. But the show is far from over.

This is the kind of BS you thrive on. There was a series of TV ads some time ago created for Pabst beer in which something was almost but not quite accomplished, such as a football player being tackled just short of the end zone. And the broadcasters voice which spoke in a stereotyped Japanese accent would always determine that it was "crose enough!"

For you, it is a fact when the verbiage, somehow, is "crose enough" to appear true. Your linked verbiage, to begin with, is structured around something Bannon supposedly said, but which (even by Snopes) is unproven. There is no proof that Bannon said he is a Leninist. But it is "crose enough" that somebody claims Bannon said it.

Then the author of the verbiage spins a trail of unproven labels (such as Bannon being a " leading intellectual of the US alt-right"--he is not alt-right but is accused of being so--which is "crose enough") opinions, interpretations, and presumptions or possibilities, and conjectured attributions that could describe a whole lot of folks including those on the American political left--i.e. Democrats--and quotes not by Bannon, but all part of an overall bag of BS which somehow implies that Bannon is the grand contradiction-- an alt-right Leninist. At least "crose enough" to the possibility that it must be a fact.

You do this "crose enough" kind of $hit a lot.

I believe she was listed once in a diversity report but not by name.


The two people at Harvard who recommended her for the job said they had no idea she thought she was a Native American and she was hired solely on her professional qualifications.


She didn't flip a single foreclosure Jim.


I looked into this one, seems like it's based off some school meeting minutes that were months before she would have been visible pregnant. Certainly doesn't invalidate her story.


Pathetic.

"I believe she was listed once in a diversity report but not by name."

Of course you believe that, because it paints her actions favorably. WHat I believe, because it's true, is that Harvard did mention her by name to show the diversity of lhe law school faculty. From the Crimson Tide article below...

"Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."


https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1996/10/22/survey-diversity-lacking-at-hls-pa/

"The two people at Harvard who recommended her for the job said they had no idea she thought she was a Native American"

You say they said. You also said they didn't mention her by name, so...

"She didn't flip a single foreclosure Jim. "

Yahoo, among others, says otherwise. I dare say you might want to re-think where you get your "news".

https://news.yahoo.com/news/harsh-foreclosure-critic-elizabeth-warren-reportedly-made-fortune-050708111.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

"I looked into this one, seems like it's based off some school meeting minutes that were months before she would have been visible pregnant. Certainly doesn't invalidate her story. "

Which took place "months before she was visibly pregnant"? If she quit before she was visibly pregnant, how could they have fired her for being pregnant?

Again, your sources of "news" are a tad askew.

This is the kind of BS you thrive on. There was a series of TV ads some time ago created for Pabst beer in which something was almost but not quite accomplished, such as a football player being tackled just short of the end zone. And the broadcasters voice which spoke in a stereotyped Japanese accent would always determine that it was "crose enough!"

For you, it is a fact when the verbiage, somehow, is "crose enough" to appear true. Your linked verbiage, to begin with, is structured around something Bannon supposedly said, but which (even by Snopes) is unproven. There is no proof that Bannon said he is a Leninist. But it is "crose enough" that somebody claims Bannon said it.

Then the author of the verbiage spins a trail of unproven labels (such as Bannon being a " leading intellectual of the US alt-right"--he is not alt-right but is accused of being so--which is "crose enough") opinions, interpretations, and presumptions or possibilities, and conjectured attributions that could describe a whole lot of folks including those on the American political left--i.e. Democrats--and quotes not by Bannon, but all part of an overall bag of BS which somehow implies that Bannon is the grand contradiction-- an alt-right Leninist. At least "crose enough" to the possibility that it must be a fact.

You do this "crose enough" kind of $hit a lot.

That’s been your justification for shutting your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and yelling since the last guy was elected.

You said last week you’d be glad if Congress defaulted on the debt.

Just what do you think that would do to Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ETTD

In a profile in New York magazine published Tuesday, Stephanie Grisham expressed remorse over her stint in the White House: “I don’t think I can rebrand. I think this will follow me forever. I believe that I was part of something unusually evil, and I hope that it was a one-time lesson for our country and that I can be a part of making sure that at least that evil doesn’t come back now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s been your justification for shutting your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and yelling since the last guy was elected.

My eyes are wide open and my ears are not covered by my hands. That's why I know that you posted something based on an unproven premise, and that you spit out false labels and have been "yelling" and blatantly lying since the last guy was elected and before that.

You said last week you’d be glad if Congress defaulted on the debt.

Just what do you think that would do to Americans


Just what do you think will be done to Americans if Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling without actually having a budget? That has to stop. It would have been less painful if it had stopped long ago. I suppose the public pain will eventually become greater and greater the longer we put up with extravagant, irresponsible, and unsustainable government spending.

We Americans are in a precarious position if we have to continuously depend on more and more spending by a bankrupt government in order to sustain our personal welfare.

ETTD

In a profile in New York magazine published Tuesday, Stephanie Grisham expressed remorse over her stint in the White House: “I don’t think I can rebrand. I think this will follow me forever. I believe that I was part of something unusually evil, and I hope that it was a one-time lesson for our country and that I can be a part of making sure that at least that evil doesn’t come back now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is comical--"unusually evil"? As opposed to the usual commonplace evil that lurks in our politics? And she doesn't think she can "rebrand"? Isn't branding part of the usual evil? I guess she thinks she just won't be allowed to create a new and better facade. Did she not think that what she was doing at the time was unusually evil? Now that it's over she does a mea culpa and writes a book to make it all better? (But it's really about someone else's culpa.) And hope for a best seller? Many times on this forum Republicans or "Conservatives" have been called things like porn merchant or other forms of money grubbing if they wrote a book or had a successful radio show, etc. But when an Anti-Trumper writes a book . . . let's pay attention . . . it's really important . . . the nation is at stake!

Don't know everything that's in the book, but the articles about it and her interviews about it that I've seen don't point to any Russian collusions, or treasons, or impeachable offenses. If that is true, then maybe that's why she didn't seem to feel "unusually" evil during her tenure with Trump. Maybe just the usual, common evils of political lying and messy procedures and chaotic running of things and personal scandals and foibles that often, if not usually, accompany political campaigns.

And if she helps to scuttle a Trump attempt to get the Republican nomination, that's OK by me. I'm hoping he doesn't run. But if he gets the nod and runs, I'll vote for him over any Democrat because, as I've said over and over, for me it's not about him, but about defeating Progressivism--though that's looking more and more unlikely.

No doubt you'll be happy with the impending Brave New World of unimpeded government power. For sure, we won't have to be concerned about things like government spending our money that it doesn't have . . . money will be no object . . . government will always have our money . . . or may not even need money . . . just have the power to do, or make us do, whatever it deems necessary. We won't have to quibble about mandates or individual rights and freedoms. We will all dutifully do as government tells us to do, and be assured that it is all rightly so. And we won't have to be concerned about pandemics. Government will prevent them. Maybe just occasional outbursts of some disease or other which will be quickly quelled by good government control . . . of everything.

We have largely eradicated Polio, tetanus, Flu, Hepatitis A+B, Rubella, Hib, Measles, Pertussis, Rotavirus, Mumps, Chickenpox, Diphtheria and Pneumococcal Disease and completely eradicated smallpox and rinderpest. Widespread vaccination is responsible for that.

CNBC
HEALTH AND SCIENCE
‘Zero Covid’ strategies are being abandoned as the highly infectious delta variant dominates
PUBLISHED TUE, OCT 5 2021

New Zealand has been notoriously strict in its tackling of Covid; Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put the entire country under a strict lockdown in August after a single suspected case of Covid caused by the delta variant — at that time the country’s first coronavirus case in six months — was reported in Auckland.
It’s the first time that New Zealand has publicly signaled a shift away from a zero Covid strategy, coming after its neighbor Australia also abandoned its zero tolerance, or “Covid zero” approach in early September, saying it had shifted to a position of “learning to live with” the virus.

Similarly to in New Zealand, Australia’s decision to abandon the strategy came after a strict lockdown in Melbourne failed to quell an outbreak there.

At the time, Victoria state’s Premier Daniel Andrews noted that “we have thrown everything at this, but it is now clear to us that we are not going to drive these numbers down, they are instead going to increase.”

Experts are not surprised by the shift in strategy, noting that the spread of the delta variant makes such approaches futile.

“It’s no surprise that New Zealand has abandoned its ‘zero covid’ strategy – the highly transmissible delta variant has changed the game and means that an elimination strategy is no longer viable,” Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, told CNBC Monday.

This is comical--"unusually evil"? As opposed to the usual commonplace evil that lurks in our politics? .

more of pete's bombshells.....

CNBC
HEALTH AND SCIENCE
‘Zero Covid’ strategies are being abandoned as the highly infectious delta variant dominates
PUBLISHED TUE, OCT 5 2021

New Zealand has been notoriously strict in its tackling of Covid; Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put the entire country under a strict lockdown in August after a single suspected case of Covid caused by the delta variant — at that time the country’s first coronavirus case in six months — was reported in Auckland.
It’s the first time that New Zealand has publicly signaled a shift away from a zero Covid strategy, coming after its neighbor Australia also abandoned its zero tolerance, or “Covid zero” approach in early September, saying it had shifted to a position of “learning to live with” the virus.

Similarly to in New Zealand, Australia’s decision to abandon the strategy came after a strict lockdown in Melbourne failed to quell an outbreak there.

At the time, Victoria state’s Premier Daniel Andrews noted that “we have thrown everything at this, but it is now clear to us that we are not going to drive these numbers down, they are instead going to increase.”

Experts are not surprised by the shift in strategy, noting that the spread of the delta variant makes such approaches futile.

“It’s no surprise that New Zealand has abandoned its ‘zero covid’ strategy – the highly transmissible delta variant has changed the game and means that an elimination strategy is no longer viable,” Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, told CNBC Monday.

What does that have to do with vaccination?

In Vermont, 100% of the COVID patients in the ICU are unvaccinated.

Unlike some states, because of the high vaccination rate, Vermont’s medical system is not overloaded.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What does that have to do with vaccination?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the subject wasn't vaccination....it was eradication


Pete F.
We have largely eradicated Polio, tetanus, blah, blah, blah, rindersomething

Just what do you think will be done to Americans if Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling without actually having a budget? That has to stop. It would have been less painful if it had stopped long ago. I suppose the public pain will eventually become greater and greater the longer we put up with extravagant, irresponsible, and unsustainable government spending.

We Americans are in a precarious position if we have to continuously depend on more and more spending by a bankrupt government in order to sustain our personal welfare.

There are two things you need to learn about America:
1) We’ve got a lot of money. We’re the richest country on the face of the planet.
2) None of us think we’ve got a lot of money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are two things you need to learn about America:

1) We’ve got a lot of money. We’re the richest country on the face of the planet.
2) None of us think we’ve got a lot of money.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who is "we've"

the subject wasn't vaccination....it was eradication


Pete F.
We have largely eradicated Polio, tetanus, blah, blah, blah, rindersomething

And the reason all of those are largely eradicated is because of vaccination.
Not because we left them uncontrolled because of “Freedum”

New Zealand is not eliminating their vaccination program
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who is "we've"

If the poorest 50% of Americans (net worth $3 trillion) suddenly vanished, it'd be chaos while everyone left scrambled in vain to restore basic features of modern civilization.

If the Forbes 400 (net worth $4.5 trillion) vanished, it'd just be some extra paperwork for lawyers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I believe she was listed once in a diversity report but not by name."

Of course you believe that, because it paints her actions favorably. WHat I believe, because it's true, is that Harvard did mention her by name to show the diversity of lhe law school faculty. From the Crimson Tide article below...

"Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."


.

when was she at Harvard?...didn't she write POW WOW CHOW in 1984?

this is bidenesque...

Elizabeth Warren's Pow Wow Chow 'Cherokee' recipes were word for word COPIES of famous FRENCH chef's techniques
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 20:31 EDT, 18 May 2012

^^^ so much cultural appropriation going on there....


stole the french chef's recipe to make the mexican soup claiming she's native american....good grief

Keep believing you have the winning argument haha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When I express concern for kids, you acted like I'm defying science for no good reason.

First, all the data I have seen, says pretty clearly that covid isn't spreading like crazy in schools, especially in elementary schools. I don't know why that is, you'd think that would be one of the hottest places for it to spread, but it's not.

Second, young kids are not at high risk for getting really sick. This is one of the very items related to covid, on which there's sort of a consensus.

Third, there has to be a psychological price for kids to pay, when we remove them from school, isolate them from their friends, eliminate all of their activities, and have them pend even less time connecting with people, and even more time online, which is the last thing they need.

My wife plays tennis with a pediatric psychiatrist at Connecticut Childrens Medical Center. She told my wife they have never seen nearly this many cases of parents seeking behavioral healthcare for young children.

The Hartford Courant ran an article today...

https://www.courant.com/coronavirus/hc-news-coronavirus-mental-health-connecticut-childrens-20211006-cvpbgy3longr7ii5sk7zqbe6ya-story.html

GS, kids need to have normal experiences to be functional. This is why they call childhood "the formative years".

When I do a cost benefit analysis of taking normal experiences away from a generation of kids who are already not spending enough time connecting with people in a physical/intimate way thanks to the Internet, I see data that says there's not as much benefit to locking young kids down as there is to locking older people down. In addition, there may be a steep cost these kids have to pay.

You can respond by saying "oh, so you're saying we should let kids ride in pickup beds on the highway and smoke cigarettes, blah blah blah". But what I'm actually saying, is pretty logical, and based on the science and data that I see.

Now do “Ted” Cruz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^ so much cultural appropriation going on there....


stole the french chef's recipe to make the mexican soup claiming she's native american....good grief

Warren just reeks of sincerity.

If the Forbes 400 (net worth $4.5 trillion) vanished, it'd just be some extra paperwork for lawyers.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we should definitely get rid of them and take their money.....

"Jim is now selling the lie that the Covid spike is cause by illegals classic. "

Again, you're hearing voices. I never said "the" spike is caused by illegals. There's only one reason why people respond to something not even close to what one says, it's because you know you can't respond to what I'm actually saying.

Here's what I said:

Democrats claim to be concerned about minimizing covid, yet they say it's not a problem that 150,000 illegals cross each month, when almost 30,000 of those may have covid.

If democrats refuse to concede that 30,000 covid-positive people coming across monthly isn't any cause for concern, then I don't see how you can claim to take covid seriously.

That's what I said. See if you can avoid responding with "Jim said we should return to slavery...".

Try to respond to what I actually said. Not to what the voices in your head are telling you I said.

"all the hospitals are filled with nonvaccinated people not immigrants "

I didn't say they're filling the hospitals. I said thousands cross daily, and the data suggests that almost 1 in 5 have covid. That's not a potential problem?

"A total of 11,445 refugees were allowed into the United States during the budget year that ended on Thursday, 2021 "

I said illegal migrants, not legal refugees. No clue why the number of refugees matters at all.

Here, those right-wing nuts at the Washington Post say that in July, the Border Patrol had encounters with 200,000 illegals in the month. That's just the count of the ones Border Patrol came across - 200,000 in a month.

The data shows that 1 in 5 have covid.

No reason for ANY concern with those numbers?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/record-numbers-illegal-border-crossings/2021/08/12/e3d305e2-facd-11eb-b8dd-0e376fba55f2_story.html

"Jim you like most other spoon fed conservatives think apprehension equals entry to the United States "

OK, How many do you suppose are entering the US per month?

"U.S. border arrests top 1 million in fiscal year 2021"

Are you saying we arrest those people, without them entering the United States? How do we do that?

In my ignorance, I though the arrest and processing took place within the United States.

I'm not saying every one of them gets to stay here forever. But all of them are here for some time, some are here for quite awhile, some are here for years.

Jim why even mention migrants and Covid at all in the same sentence.. unless it’s to blame and deflect from actual happening.. in the US with Covid like bring up Warren ..

Only conservatives are trying to tie migrants to Covid …no one saying they don’t have Covid . They just are not the reason for the spike .. so how did these migrants get to Idaho
With their Covid issues

Here are some headlines

No evidence migrants at border significantly spreading virus

This week, one Republican leader after another rushed to blame the spread of the virus, not on the unvaccinated but on immigrants.


Some Republicans Blame Migrants For COVID-19 Surges. Doctors Say They're Scapegoating

They're "allowing free pass into the United States of people with a high probability of COVID, and then spreading that COVID in our communities," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in an interview last month on Fox News.

"I can tell you, whatever variants are around the world, they're coming across that southern border," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at a press conference last week.

You really need to pay more attention to what these so call Republicans leaders are actually saying

Just look at Covid funds

All Republicans in Congress voted against the $1.9 trillion relief bill signed by President Joe Biden last month – but that hasn’t stopped several of them from publicly celebrating funding to their districts made possible by its passage.

Alabama GOP governor signs bills to use Covid-19 relief funds to build prisons into law

Gov. Brian Kemp announced $1,000 bonuses for first responders paid for with the relief money. In Wyoming, a Republican legislative leader suggested the money could be used to pay the federal fines of businesses that defy Biden's vaccine mandate.

In Galveston County, Texas, Republican county commissioners approved a plan to spend $6.6 million of its total $27 million in coronavirus relief money for security roughly 350 miles (560 kilometers) away on the U.S.-Mexico border. They say the money will protect residents from COVID-19 and other dangers brought by people entering the United States

Arizona to use COVID money for anti-mask grants,


These actions just show how Republicans are unable and unwilling to do anything for Americans But would rather pull stunts for their base saying look we’re owing the libs . What a bunch of intellectually dishonest people these Trump Republicans have become
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim why even mention migrants and Covid at all in the same sentence.. unless it’s to blame and deflect from actual happening.. in the US with Covid like bring up Warren ..

Only conservatives are trying to tie migrants to Covid …no one saying they don’t have Covid . They just are not the reason for the spike .. so how did these migrants get to Idaho
With their Covid issues

No evidence migrants at border significantly spreading virus

This week, one Republican leader after another rushed to blame the spread of the virus, not on the unvaccinated but on immigrants.


Some Republicans Blame Migrants For COVID-19 Surges. Doctors Say They're Scapegoating

They're "allowing free pass into the United States of people with a high probability of COVID, and then spreading that COVID in our communities," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in an interview last month on Fox News.

"I can tell you, whatever variants are around the world, they're coming across that southern border," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at a press conference last week.

You really need to pay more attention to what these so call Republicans leaders are actually saying

Just look at Covid funds

All Republicans in Congress voted against the $1.9 trillion relief bill signed by President Joe Biden last month – but that hasn’t stopped several of them from publicly celebrating funding to their districts made possible by its passage.

Alabama GOP governor signs bills to use Covid-19 relief funds to build prisons into law

Gov. Brian Kemp announced $1,000 bonuses for first responders paid for with the relief money. In Wyoming, a Republican legislative leader suggested the money could be used to pay the federal fines of businesses that defy Biden's vaccine mandate.

In Galveston County, Texas, Republican county commissioners approved a plan to spend $6.6 million of its total $27 million in coronavirus relief money for security roughly 350 miles (560 kilometers) away on the U.S.-Mexico border. They say the money will protect residents from COVID-19 and other dangers brought by people entering the United States

Arizona to use COVID money for anti-mask grants,


These actions just show how Republicans are unable and unwilling to do anything for Americans But would rather pull stunts for their base saying look we’re owing the libs . What a bunch of intellectually dishonest these Trump Republicans have become
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim why even mention migrants and Covid at all in the same sentence."

Because 200,000 of them were encountered on our side of the border, and one result showed that 1 in 5 had covid. That's 40,000 covid-positive migrants coming across in a month, and that's just the ones that BP encountered. Who knows how many more there are.

I answered your question. Can you answer mine? Why do you think it' snot even worth mentioning, that our open borders are essentially importing as many as 40,000 covid-positive people in a month? Why are you so intent on sweeping that under the rug?

"unless it’s to blame and deflect from actual happening.. in the US with Covid"

We can't talk about two things at once? Maybe you can't, most of us can. I'm not deflecting anything. There are multiple facets to this, I go where the truth (not where CNN) takes me.

"Only conservatives are trying to tie migrants to Covid"

SO you deny that tens of thousands of covid-positive migrants are likely coming across the southern border?

Wayne, when I brought this up, you immediately pivoted to the insignificantly low number of migrants who were granted asylum. You completely ignored the much, much larger number of illegal migrants. Then you claimed the illegals are never in the USA. So it appears to us that youre the one who is lying and deflecting.

You say you want to address covid, but you won't admit any issue with 40,000 covid-positive people crossing in a single month, in addition to god-knows-how-many others that were never encountered by BPS. We all know they don't catch all of them.

So one of two things is happening. Either you don't think that importing 40,000 sick people a month is worthy of discussing, or you refuse to discuss it because the underlying issue (open border) is a losing issue for your political agenda.

I have seen just about every conservatives here, criticize conservatives a few times. None of the liberals here except Rockhound, are capable of it. Never.

If the poorest 50% of Americans (net worth $3 trillion) suddenly vanished, it'd be chaos while everyone left scrambled in vain to restore basic features of modern civilization.

If the Forbes 400 (net worth $4.5 trillion) vanished, it'd just be some extra paperwork for lawyers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's just about the most economically stupid thing I've ever read.

You are pathologically obsessed with the existence of a small number of wealthy people, whose existence has no impact on you at all. You're foaming at the mouth here.

Jim why even mention migrants and Covid at all in the same sentence.. unless it’s to blame and deflect from actual happening.. in the US with Covid like bring up Warren ..

Only conservatives are trying to tie migrants to Covid …no one saying they don’t have Covid . They just are not the reason for the spike .. so how did these migrants get to Idaho
With their Covid issues

Here are some headlines

No evidence migrants at border significantly spreading virus

This week, one Republican leader after another rushed to blame the spread of the virus, not on the unvaccinated but on immigrants.


Some Republicans Blame Migrants For COVID-19 Surges. Doctors Say They're Scapegoating

They're "allowing free pass into the United States of people with a high probability of COVID, and then spreading that COVID in our communities," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in an interview last month on Fox News.

"I can tell you, whatever variants are around the world, they're coming across that southern border," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at a press conference last week.

You really need to pay more attention to what these so call Republicans leaders are actually saying

Just look at Covid funds

All Republicans in Congress voted against the $1.9 trillion relief bill signed by President Joe Biden last month – but that hasn’t stopped several of them from publicly celebrating funding to their districts made possible by its passage.

Alabama GOP governor signs bills to use Covid-19 relief funds to build prisons into law

Gov. Brian Kemp announced $1,000 bonuses for first responders paid for with the relief money. In Wyoming, a Republican legislative leader suggested the money could be used to pay the federal fines of businesses that defy Biden's vaccine mandate.

In Galveston County, Texas, Republican county commissioners approved a plan to spend $6.6 million of its total $27 million in coronavirus relief money for security roughly 350 miles (560 kilometers) away on the U.S.-Mexico border. They say the money will protect residents from COVID-19 and other dangers brought by people entering the United States

Arizona to use COVID money for anti-mask grants,


These actions just show how Republicans are unable and unwilling to do anything for Americans But would rather pull stunts for their base saying look we’re owing the libs . What a bunch of intellectually dishonest people these Trump Republicans have become
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"unless it’s to blame and deflect from actual happening.. in the US with Covid like bring up Warren ."

Spence brought up Warren, not me. It was OK with you when he brought her up, but a character flaw when I respond? How does that make sense?

Again, your entire existence on this forum is democrat=good, republican= bad. we get it, you don't need to keep saying it in different ways.

"These actions just show how Republicans are unable and unwilling to do anything for Americans"

Here's a study in the New York Times (not known to be Republican-friendly) showing clearly, that conservatives give more money and time to charity, than liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If Republicans don't do anything for Americans, explain the Gallup poll that showed a record-number of Americans claimed to be better off after 4 years of Trump, than after 4 years of any president in the history of that poll?

Yeah, John McCain, Dan Crenshaw, Tom Cotton, what have they ever done for anybody?

If the poorest 50% of Americans (net worth $3 trillion) suddenly vanished, it'd be chaos while everyone left scrambled in vain to restore basic features of modern civilization.

If the Forbes 400 (net worth $4.5 trillion) vanished, it'd just be some extra paperwork for lawyers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's just about the most economically stupid thing I've ever read.

You are pathologically obsessed with the existence of a small number of wealthy people, whose existence has no impact on you at all. You're foaming at the mouth here.

The way the economics work is

The lowest 50% disappear, GDP goes to single digits, entire sectors disappear.

Lose 400 billionaires, all their investments continue and their labor is negligible.

You are obsessed with wealthy people and try to equate your rabid behavior with intelligence.

I'm concerned with the redistribution of wealth in this country thru politics and control of the government.

700,000 people have vanished in the US, & Americans are wondering where all the service staff went

Here's a study in the New York Times (not known to be Republican-friendly) showing clearly, that conservatives give more money and time to charity, than liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html



An Op-Ed from anyone is not evidence.
Here's another one from the same time.

November 3, 2018; New York Times

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats don’t play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties’ supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder.

Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are “overwhelmingly Republican” report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although “giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.” The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

One could conclude this shows the Republican party is, despite the conventional wisdom, the party that cares about those in need and puts its money where its mouth is. But the true picture is more complex, reflecting at best a real difference between the parties in the best way to approach the challenge of human need. Because the range of organizations and activities that are supported by tax deductible giving is very wide, it is not clear how these funds are actually used or what motives they reflect.

Republicans do give more, but where that money ends up is not yet clear. One of the study’s authors, Rebecca Nesbit, associate professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia, told the New York Times that Republicans prefer to “provide for the collective good through private institutions. But we don’t know what type of institutions they’re giving to.” It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school.

While red counties may be more philanthropic, tax rates are higher in blue counties, reflecting stronger support for collective action and for a social safety net of services and organizations. “The county you live in and the political ideology of that county affects the tax burden of the community,” Dr. Nesbit said. “That in turn has an effect on charitable contributions. If you leave tax burden out of the equation, you’re not getting the full story.”

Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.

Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

Most concerning in this moment of high political strife is the finding that everyone pulls back in areas where political division is high: “When counties are split evenly between the political parties, both donations and the tax burden go down. Or in the study’s terms: Political competition decreases giving.” This does not bode well for organizations whose work is holding up a part of the social safety net, nor for the people they serve.

As we see very graphically on a national level, split electorates and the split governments they elect have difficulty enacting polices and laws to support democratic approaches to collective action. The publicly funded portion of the safety net weakens. If Republicans, who may be more individually ready than their Democratic neighbors, do not make growing charitable donations for these same purposes, philanthropy will not provide the solution, either.—Marty Levine

700,000 people have vanished in the US, & Americans are wondering where all the service staff went

Except that as of September 2021, 77% of covid fatalities have been for people aged 65+.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/

You will make up ANYTHING to sling arrows at the right.

An Op-Ed from anyone is not evidence.


I guess you didn't bother to read my post. The op-ed discussed a statistical study. You can ignore every word of the columnist and focus on the data in the study. I encourage you to do that. You won't like the results.

The author of the study, Arthur Brooks, expected to conclude that liberals are more generous (after all, CNN says so). But he found the opposite (not that liberals aren't generous by the way, but conservatives were slightly more so). Brooks concluded, as a rational person might expect, that the role that religion plays on the two sides (important to the right, mocked by the left) is a main incentive for conservatives to dig a little deeper.

Despite what the left says, there's actually more to religion than bombing abortion clinics. Christianity has some pretty good qualities. You won't hear that on any mainstream news though, which is why you aren't aware of it.

700,000 people have vanished in the US, & Americans are wondering where all the service staff went

Crazy, huh, can't believe how hard it is to get service staff over the age of 65, these days, since this all started. That usually is the target hiring age of the service industry too :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you didn't bother to read my post. The op-ed discussed a statistical study. You can ignore every word of the columnist and focus on the data in the study. I encourage you to do that. You won't like the results.

The author of the study, Arthur Brooks, expected to conclude that liberals are more generous (after all, CNN says so). But he found the opposite (not that liberals aren't generous by the way, but conservatives were slightly more so). Brooks concluded, as a rational person might expect, that the role that religion plays on the two sides (important to the right, mocked by the left) is a main incentive for conservatives to dig a little deeper.

Despite what the left says, there's actually more to religion than bombing abortion clinics. Christianity has some pretty good qualities. You won't hear that on any mainstream news though, which is why you aren't aware of it.


Molesting children is spectacular

Crazy, huh, can't believe how hard it is to get service staff over the age of 65, these days, since this all started. That usually is the target hiring age of the service industry too :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

150K were not:rtfm:

Crazy, huh, can't believe how hard it is to get service staff over the age of 65, these days, since this all started. That usually is the target hiring age of the service industry too :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's unbelievable what people will do, when the facts aren't on their side, but they can't admit it.

They claim to care about the deaths, but not one of them criticized Gov Cuomo for forcing nursing homes to admit residents who tested positive for a disease which we all knew was going to target the elderly. They were giving him emmys in the middle of that, calling him the "gold standard".

Molesting children is spectacular

Yes, that's exactly what I've said, many times.

You can't just admit what has been proven to be true, unless it supports liberalism.

I guess you didn't bother to read my post. The op-ed discussed a statistical study. You can ignore every word of the columnist and focus on the data in the study. I encourage you to do that. You won't like the results.

The author of the study, Arthur Brooks, expected to conclude that liberals are more generous (after all, CNN says so). But he found the opposite (not that liberals aren't generous by the way, but conservatives were slightly more so). Brooks concluded, as a rational person might expect, that the role that religion plays on the two sides (important to the right, mocked by the left) is a main incentive for conservatives to dig a little deeper.

Despite what the left says, there's actually more to religion than bombing abortion clinics. Christianity has some pretty good qualities. You won't hear that on any mainstream news though, which is why you aren't aware of it.

I read your post and the Op-Ed it referred to, nowhere did it link to a study, only inferred information that the author gave his opinion on.
If as you claim you have read that study perhaps you can link it.

By the way it's behind a paywall.

150K were not:rtfm:

Now take out the over 50's, because most of the service staff folks are usually younger than that. Then narrow it down to what percentage of the workforce that works as service staff

Number keeps getting smaller doesn't it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read your post and the Op-Ed it referred to, nowhere did it link to a study, only inferred information that the author gave his opinion on.
If as you claim you have read that study perhaps you can link it.

By the way it's behind a paywall.

The study is called "Who Really Cares", done by Arthur Brooks, who has a lot of experience in public policy.