|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Bol wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I’m still capable of an interested in a political science and issues debate. The difference is there’s no one left outside of fellow Democrats and Democrat leaning independents to do it with anymore. Like Mitch, the GOP has closed shop down to the lowest foot soldier on even the idea of what a fact is. Accusing me of nothing but partisanship is like the “no puppet, you’re the puppet” debate moment. Of course I’m a partisan. I admit it. And that’s the first, honest step to a real debate. |
Omar, I am not trying to get under your skin....my honest perception is you have became an angry partisan. You continuously use nasty and vile descriptions of "Republicans"....not Trump or Mitch or Hannity....but "Republicans". Others have always made those ignorant comments in this thread, but you did not when I first began visiting this thread around 2014ish. I recall many times you making it known to me that you had mixed feelings on a partisan topic or you could at least see why someone thought a way you did not agree with at the time. I can't recall a conversation with you in this thread in the last 2-3 years where I did not clearly feel like a personal enemy. |
I can't speak for other posters, but perhaps this is because of Trump? I'm an independent who usually votes Dem, but until recently I thought Republicans were regular people with different opinions. Seeing how many of them support a president whose general behavior is an affront to basic human decency and civility, who plainly knows nothing about government, law or history, who has nothing to offer except empty boasts, insults and lies, has me confused, frankly. It really makes no sense to me why anyone would think this is good. For me personally it has nothing to do with policy or Supreme Court justices or any of that, I just think it's a terrible sign for civilization to have such an ignorant, irresponsible, immature, immoral person in the most important position in the country. That stuff is all fine for reality TV, tabloids and stand-up comedy, not for the presidency. It's really just ridiculous. |
There are people who genuinely don’t care how he acts or behaves. They care about policy and the fact that they perceive he is facilitating a thriving economy. The best way to debate those people is argue that the economy will continue to do well without Trump more than lamenting the fact that Trump is a (bleep) person. I know people who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who will vote for him in 2020 because of the economy and because they don’t see a viable candidate making it out of the Democratic Party. |
Or that the economy is not as exceptional as we continually hear. The GDP, the single best indicator is below average, using post depression, post WW2, or even the the Reagan era and beyond. The jobs data is very good, but what is better, what occurred during Obama, when it went from 10% to 4.2% or under Trump, when it has gone from 4.2% to 3.6%? Last I checked, the earnings of the average American has increased less than the latter part of Obama's admin.
So, you've got an averagish economy, yet we've (but let's be real here, it is more they, our children) inherited tremendous debt as a result of the tax cut. And let's not forget that these cuts have a baked in tax increase for the middle class at the latter portion of life of the bill.
Living on the credit card is never good. |
BJH,
You still haven't addressed the fact that this averagish economy, is based, in part, on debt--debt that allows us to live a better life, but at the expense of our children.
Also, regulations have been curtailed or ignored, so that a greater profit can be had. This also, in the form of environmental damage, will be our legacy, and yes, again at the expense of our children.
I will add, that you seem to just accept that all of these horrible traits of Trump are worth it, or at least, that's how his followers think. I will surmise the reason, in part, is that they are of a similar cut, lacking much of the morality (real or not) that much of the Republican Party professed--family values, ALL of the ten commandments, civility, balanced budgets, honesty, a strong disdain for Russia, the rule of law, and being stewards of the planet--and that they simply don't give a (bleep) about the future. |
I don’t agree we are currently experiencing an average economy for the numerous reasons I’ve expressed above. And if you want to discuss debt in relation to politics, how do you think we are going to pay for the policies many of the democratic candidates are proposing? Debt is an issue that neither side seems too interested in fixing. I don’t believe climate change is as pressing of an issue as it is made out to be and I don’t think the policies proposed to correct it are worth the damage it will cause the economy. We need to make more progress without severely damaging the economy as I think many proposed solutions will. |
The last four quarters of the GDP (4th 2018 - 3rd 2019), representing FY 2019, are 1.1, 3.1, 2.0, 2.1. This is about 2.1%. This is below average. Period. The "horrible" Obama average was 2.21% going by, essentially, fiscal years.
Unemployment has dropped all of .6 points under Trump, about a half a percent, when it dropped 5.8 points under the "horrible" Obama economy.
Lastly, not "believing" in climate change is a real problem. How do we weigh a simple belief (I will guess, not really an educated one) with what is now, near consensus, if not 100% consensus, that man is aggravating climate change. You know, I don't really know this to be a fact, just as I don't know exactly how Einstein's principles and nearly all of physics work. I don't "believe" one way or another, just as I don't believe one way or another the age of the planet, or, the distance to the sun, or that pi is actually 3.14159 as I've not measured that ratio. But I accept what the (largely, if not solely, non political) scientific community tell me about these. I accept that all, or nearly all of our scientists*, and every national or international scientific body, agrees with the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
* (from Wiki): "A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Bol wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I’m still capable of an interested in a political science and issues debate. The difference is there’s no one left outside of fellow Democrats and Democrat leaning independents to do it with anymore. Like Mitch, the GOP has closed shop down to the lowest foot soldier on even the idea of what a fact is. Accusing me of nothing but partisanship is like the “no puppet, you’re the puppet” debate moment. Of course I’m a partisan. I admit it. And that’s the first, honest step to a real debate. |
Omar, I am not trying to get under your skin....my honest perception is you have became an angry partisan. You continuously use nasty and vile descriptions of "Republicans"....not Trump or Mitch or Hannity....but "Republicans". Others have always made those ignorant comments in this thread, but you did not when I first began visiting this thread around 2014ish. I recall many times you making it known to me that you had mixed feelings on a partisan topic or you could at least see why someone thought a way you did not agree with at the time. I can't recall a conversation with you in this thread in the last 2-3 years where I did not clearly feel like a personal enemy. |
I can't speak for other posters, but perhaps this is because of Trump? I'm an independent who usually votes Dem, but until recently I thought Republicans were regular people with different opinions. Seeing how many of them support a president whose general behavior is an affront to basic human decency and civility, who plainly knows nothing about government, law or history, who has nothing to offer except empty boasts, insults and lies, has me confused, frankly. It really makes no sense to me why anyone would think this is good. For me personally it has nothing to do with policy or Supreme Court justices or any of that, I just think it's a terrible sign for civilization to have such an ignorant, irresponsible, immature, immoral person in the most important position in the country. That stuff is all fine for reality TV, tabloids and stand-up comedy, not for the presidency. It's really just ridiculous. |
There are people who genuinely don’t care how he acts or behaves. They care about policy and the fact that they perceive he is facilitating a thriving economy. The best way to debate those people is argue that the economy will continue to do well without Trump more than lamenting the fact that Trump is a (bleep) person. I know people who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who will vote for him in 2020 because of the economy and because they don’t see a viable candidate making it out of the Democratic Party. |
Or that the economy is not as exceptional as we continually hear. The GDP, the single best indicator is below average, using post depression, post WW2, or even the the Reagan era and beyond. The jobs data is very good, but what is better, what occurred during Obama, when it went from 10% to 4.2% or under Trump, when it has gone from 4.2% to 3.6%? Last I checked, the earnings of the average American has increased less than the latter part of Obama's admin.
So, you've got an averagish economy, yet we've (but let's be real here, it is more they, our children) inherited tremendous debt as a result of the tax cut. And let's not forget that these cuts have a baked in tax increase for the middle class at the latter portion of life of the bill.
Living on the credit card is never good. |
BJH,
You still haven't addressed the fact that this averagish economy, is based, in part, on debt--debt that allows us to live a better life, but at the expense of our children.
Also, regulations have been curtailed or ignored, so that a greater profit can be had. This also, in the form of environmental damage, will be our legacy, and yes, again at the expense of our children.
I will add, that you seem to just accept that all of these horrible traits of Trump are worth it, or at least, that's how his followers think. I will surmise the reason, in part, is that they are of a similar cut, lacking much of the morality (real or not) that much of the Republican Party professed--family values, ALL of the ten commandments, civility, balanced budgets, honesty, a strong disdain for Russia, the rule of law, and being stewards of the planet--and that they simply don't give a (bleep) about the future. |
I don’t agree we are currently experiencing an average economy for the numerous reasons I’ve expressed above. And if you want to discuss debt in relation to politics, how do you think we are going to pay for the policies many of the democratic candidates are proposing? Debt is an issue that neither side seems too interested in fixing. I don’t believe climate change is as pressing of an issue as it is made out to be and I don’t think the policies proposed to correct it are worth the damage it will cause the economy. We need to make more progress without severely damaging the economy as I think many proposed solutions will. |
The last four quarters of the GDP (4th 2018 - 3rd 2019), representing FY 2019, are 1.1, 3.1, 2.0, 2.1. This is about 2.1%. This is below average. Period. The "horrible" Obama average was 2.21% going by, essentially, fiscal years.
Unemployment has dropped all of .6 points under Trump, about a half a percent, when it dropped 5.8 points under the "horrible" Obama economy.
Lastly, not "believing" in climate change is a real problem. How do we weigh a simple belief (I will guess, not really an educated one) with what is now, near consensus, if not 100% consensus, that man is aggravating climate change. You know, I don't really know this to be a fact, just as I don't know exactly how Einstein's principles and nearly all of physics work. I don't "believe" one way or another, just as I don't believe one way or another the age of the planet, or, the distance to the sun, or that pi is actually 3.14159 as I've not measured that ratio. But I accept what the (largely, if not solely, non political) scientific community tell me about these. I accept that all, or nearly all of our scientists*, and every national or international scientific body, agrees with the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
* (from Wiki): "A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]" |
I see we have reached the misrepresenting my position portion of the discussion. I never said I don’t believe it. I said I don’t think it’s as severe as it’s been made out to be in an attempt to introduce policies that I think are too extreme and will devastate our economy. Obviously, humans are contributing to climate change and something needs to be done. What that something is and how urgent it is, is the discussion that needs to be had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | It is true that markets correct independently, seeking equilibrium. The myth is that that equilibrium is related to broad benevolence. The corrections of a market almost always benefit only some while hurting others, and in our markets, the benefitted is virtually always a small portion. Market corrections tend to concentrate wealth. If it is a tide, it does not lift all boats. It swamps many and drowns those without while the very largest boats ride ever higher.
Capitalism is the one system we know that works. But the same reason it works (greed) is also a reason it must be fettered and offset. You want a real debate? That’s where it is at. How much? But when you start hearing leave it alone, you aren’t in a debate. You’re in an attempted indoctrination that either the person selling doesn’t understand is false, or is trying to get you to not understand. |
Bingo. I don’t think greed is the only or even biggest factor but you are correct when you say how much is the debate that should be had.
Corrections can concentrate the wealth but keep in mind it also levels the playing field a bit. Less well off people can make money off the recovery while rich people can lose what they had during the collapse and not recover. I think that’s important to point out. Capitalism, at its core, is competition for wealth and prosperity. There will always be rich and poor. Regulation should be implemented to level the playing field not to disperse wealth evenly or protect the wealthy. |
Correction virtually never levels the playing field. That's because it is market correction, and the market does not care a whit about the equality of playing fields. The market is a place of buying and selling. It is not a social engineering structure, and it does not care about the individual participants. If a million people become useless to the market, so be it.
And wealth always concentrates in a "free" market. It's one of the basic flaws of capitalism. Everything has flaws. And no amount of "leveling the field" will deal with the flaw that it must have winners and losers. To some extent, you want to level the results as well. Especially in a market that needs fewer and fewer productive people in a planet with more and more people. And hell, giving people money they put right back into the market is actually good for the market. The best thing you can make an unproductive person is a consumer.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
By the way, that big tax break that was going to trickle down?
AT&T is saving $3 billion/year because of it. Want to know how many jobs they created with that savings?
| Quote: | | A new analysis of AT&T’s March proxy statement and annual report by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) shows the telecom company eliminated 23,328 jobs since the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed in late 2017, including nearly 6,000 in the first quarter of 2019. These cuts come even as the company received a $21 billion windfall from the tax bill and is projecting $3 billion in annual tax savings going forward. AT&T’s annual report also shows the company boosted executive pay and suggests that after refunds, it paid no cash income taxes in 2018 and slashed capital investments by $1.4 billion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | It is true that markets correct independently, seeking equilibrium. The myth is that that equilibrium is related to broad benevolence. The corrections of a market almost always benefit only some while hurting others, and in our markets, the benefitted is virtually always a small portion. Market corrections tend to concentrate wealth. If it is a tide, it does not lift all boats. It swamps many and drowns those without while the very largest boats ride ever higher.
Capitalism is the one system we know that works. But the same reason it works (greed) is also a reason it must be fettered and offset. You want a real debate? That’s where it is at. How much? But when you start hearing leave it alone, you aren’t in a debate. You’re in an attempted indoctrination that either the person selling doesn’t understand is false, or is trying to get you to not understand. |
Bingo. I don’t think greed is the only or even biggest factor but you are correct when you say how much is the debate that should be had.
Corrections can concentrate the wealth but keep in mind it also levels the playing field a bit. Less well off people can make money off the recovery while rich people can lose what they had during the collapse and not recover. I think that’s important to point out. Capitalism, at its core, is competition for wealth and prosperity. There will always be rich and poor. Regulation should be implemented to level the playing field not to disperse wealth evenly or protect the wealthy. |
Correction virtually never levels the playing field. That's because it is market correction, and the market does not care a whit about the equality of playing fields. The market is a place of buying and selling. It is not a social engineering structure, and it does not care about the individual participants. If a million people become useless to the market, so be it.
And wealth always concentrates in a "free" market. It's one of the basic flaws of capitalism. Everything has flaws. And no amount of "leveling the field" will deal with the flaw that it must have winners and losers. To some extent, you want to level the results as well. Especially in a market that needs fewer and fewer productive people in a planet with more and more people. And hell, giving people money they put right back into the market is actually good for the market. The best thing you can make an unproductive person is a consumer. |
I meant it creates opportunity when I said it levels the playing field a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | It is true that markets correct independently, seeking equilibrium. The myth is that that equilibrium is related to broad benevolence. The corrections of a market almost always benefit only some while hurting others, and in our markets, the benefitted is virtually always a small portion. Market corrections tend to concentrate wealth. If it is a tide, it does not lift all boats. It swamps many and drowns those without while the very largest boats ride ever higher.
Capitalism is the one system we know that works. But the same reason it works (greed) is also a reason it must be fettered and offset. You want a real debate? That’s where it is at. How much? But when you start hearing leave it alone, you aren’t in a debate. You’re in an attempted indoctrination that either the person selling doesn’t understand is false, or is trying to get you to not understand. |
Bingo. I don’t think greed is the only or even biggest factor but you are correct when you say how much is the debate that should be had.
Corrections can concentrate the wealth but keep in mind it also levels the playing field a bit. Less well off people can make money off the recovery while rich people can lose what they had during the collapse and not recover. I think that’s important to point out. Capitalism, at its core, is competition for wealth and prosperity. There will always be rich and poor. Regulation should be implemented to level the playing field not to disperse wealth evenly or protect the wealthy. |
Correction virtually never levels the playing field. That's because it is market correction, and the market does not care a whit about the equality of playing fields. The market is a place of buying and selling. It is not a social engineering structure, and it does not care about the individual participants. If a million people become useless to the market, so be it.
And wealth always concentrates in a "free" market. It's one of the basic flaws of capitalism. Everything has flaws. And no amount of "leveling the field" will deal with the flaw that it must have winners and losers. To some extent, you want to level the results as well. Especially in a market that needs fewer and fewer productive people in a planet with more and more people. And hell, giving people money they put right back into the market is actually good for the market. The best thing you can make an unproductive person is a consumer. |
I meant it creates opportunity when I said it levels the playing field a bit. |
It doesn't really though. The opportunities to profit from the recovery are almost always more concentrated than the market was before.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: |
The more accurate point is that the people who look at the stock market or unemployment figures that go no deeper than a single percentage as indicators of the economy are ignorant. It's what this administration sells to the fools who support them because while very few of them have experienced real benefits from any policy decision, it makes them feel like they are winning too.
But rather than post articles to support that, I would suggest that you take a look at the percentage of Americans who are invested in the stock market and to what degree. Then take a look at the number of layoffs that have occurred in those companies that trade on the exchanges. Perhaps even look at how much of that huge tax savings they were gifted went into stock buybacks vs. going into improving the lives of employees.
After that, take a look at the unemployment numbers by salary vs cost of living and maybe take a look at the number of people who hold multiple jobs. |
I think the stats show there's fewer people invested in the stock market now than before the crash, understandably. Majority of them are older and wealthier.
I spent Thanksgiving in Alabama, with the in-laws. All of them Trump supporters. None of them invested in the stock market, aside from one of them having a 401K. But, they all pointed to the stock market being up, as if it meant anything to their rural part of the country. They can't even get reliable internet because it's not worth it for providers to build out there way. Yet, they just love to talk about the "success" of the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Bol wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I’m still capable of an interested in a political science and issues debate. The difference is there’s no one left outside of fellow Democrats and Democrat leaning independents to do it with anymore. Like Mitch, the GOP has closed shop down to the lowest foot soldier on even the idea of what a fact is. Accusing me of nothing but partisanship is like the “no puppet, you’re the puppet” debate moment. Of course I’m a partisan. I admit it. And that’s the first, honest step to a real debate. |
Omar, I am not trying to get under your skin....my honest perception is you have became an angry partisan. You continuously use nasty and vile descriptions of "Republicans"....not Trump or Mitch or Hannity....but "Republicans". Others have always made those ignorant comments in this thread, but you did not when I first began visiting this thread around 2014ish. I recall many times you making it known to me that you had mixed feelings on a partisan topic or you could at least see why someone thought a way you did not agree with at the time. I can't recall a conversation with you in this thread in the last 2-3 years where I did not clearly feel like a personal enemy. |
I can't speak for other posters, but perhaps this is because of Trump? I'm an independent who usually votes Dem, but until recently I thought Republicans were regular people with different opinions. Seeing how many of them support a president whose general behavior is an affront to basic human decency and civility, who plainly knows nothing about government, law or history, who has nothing to offer except empty boasts, insults and lies, has me confused, frankly. It really makes no sense to me why anyone would think this is good. For me personally it has nothing to do with policy or Supreme Court justices or any of that, I just think it's a terrible sign for civilization to have such an ignorant, irresponsible, immature, immoral person in the most important position in the country. That stuff is all fine for reality TV, tabloids and stand-up comedy, not for the presidency. It's really just ridiculous. |
There are people who genuinely don’t care how he acts or behaves. They care about policy and the fact that they perceive he is facilitating a thriving economy. The best way to debate those people is argue that the economy will continue to do well without Trump more than lamenting the fact that Trump is a (bleep) person. I know people who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who will vote for him in 2020 because of the economy and because they don’t see a viable candidate making it out of the Democratic Party. |
Or that the economy is not as exceptional as we continually hear. The GDP, the single best indicator is below average, using post depression, post WW2, or even the the Reagan era and beyond. The jobs data is very good, but what is better, what occurred during Obama, when it went from 10% to 4.2% or under Trump, when it has gone from 4.2% to 3.6%? Last I checked, the earnings of the average American has increased less than the latter part of Obama's admin.
So, you've got an averagish economy, yet we've (but let's be real here, it is more they, our children) inherited tremendous debt as a result of the tax cut. And let's not forget that these cuts have a baked in tax increase for the middle class at the latter portion of life of the bill.
Living on the credit card is never good. |
BJH,
You still haven't addressed the fact that this averagish economy, is based, in part, on debt--debt that allows us to live a better life, but at the expense of our children.
Also, regulations have been curtailed or ignored, so that a greater profit can be had. This also, in the form of environmental damage, will be our legacy, and yes, again at the expense of our children.
I will add, that you seem to just accept that all of these horrible traits of Trump are worth it, or at least, that's how his followers think. I will surmise the reason, in part, is that they are of a similar cut, lacking much of the morality (real or not) that much of the Republican Party professed--family values, ALL of the ten commandments, civility, balanced budgets, honesty, a strong disdain for Russia, the rule of law, and being stewards of the planet--and that they simply don't give a (bleep) about the future. |
I don’t agree we are currently experiencing an average economy for the numerous reasons I’ve expressed above. And if you want to discuss debt in relation to politics, how do you think we are going to pay for the policies many of the democratic candidates are proposing? Debt is an issue that neither side seems too interested in fixing. I don’t believe climate change is as pressing of an issue as it is made out to be and I don’t think the policies proposed to correct it are worth the damage it will cause the economy. We need to make more progress without severely damaging the economy as I think many proposed solutions will. |
The last four quarters of the GDP (4th 2018 - 3rd 2019), representing FY 2019, are 1.1, 3.1, 2.0, 2.1. This is about 2.1%. This is below average. Period. The "horrible" Obama average was 2.21% going by, essentially, fiscal years.
Unemployment has dropped all of .6 points under Trump, about a half a percent, when it dropped 5.8 points under the "horrible" Obama economy.
Lastly, not "believing" in climate change is a real problem. How do we weigh a simple belief (I will guess, not really an educated one) with what is now, near consensus, if not 100% consensus, that man is aggravating climate change. You know, I don't really know this to be a fact, just as I don't know exactly how Einstein's principles and nearly all of physics work. I don't "believe" one way or another, just as I don't believe one way or another the age of the planet, or, the distance to the sun, or that pi is actually 3.14159 as I've not measured that ratio. But I accept what the (largely, if not solely, non political) scientific community tell me about these. I accept that all, or nearly all of our scientists*, and every national or international scientific body, agrees with the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
* (from Wiki): "A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]" |
I see we have reached the misrepresenting my position portion of the discussion. I never said I don’t believe it. I said I don’t think it’s as severe as it’s been made out to be in an attempt to introduce policies that I think are too extreme and will devastate our economy. Obviously, humans are contributing to climate change and something needs to be done. What that something is and how urgent it is, is the discussion that needs to be had. |
Ok. It was not my intention to misrepresent, and yeah, it's great that some have moved a bit in their stance to come to accept global climate change is real, but with your caveat, I don't know if there is much of a difference, in effect, in what I said and what you are saying. Talk ain't gettin' it done. We have been talking about this for a couple of decades and were are actually worse off. I would suggest we not only accept what is the problem, but what is the scientific community's solution, specifically, accepting the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
| Quote: | | In October 2018 the IPCC issued a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C, finding that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, the report found that limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society. While previous estimates focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by 2°C, this report shows that many of the adverse impacts of climate change will come at the 1.5°C mark. |
Since we are nowhere close to reaching that goal, just what do you propose in the alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67622
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Global warming is proven. I vaguely recall reading or hearing something about developing a system that returns emission to furnace and burning them as fuel.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | By the way, that big tax break that was going to trickle down?
AT&T is saving $3 billion/year because of it. Want to know how many jobs they created with that savings?
| Quote: | | A new analysis of AT&T’s March proxy statement and annual report by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) shows the telecom company eliminated 23,328 jobs since the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed in late 2017, including nearly 6,000 in the first quarter of 2019. These cuts come even as the company received a $21 billion windfall from the tax bill and is projecting $3 billion in annual tax savings going forward. AT&T’s annual report also shows the company boosted executive pay and suggests that after refunds, it paid no cash income taxes in 2018 and slashed capital investments by $1.4 billion. |
|
Can't be Trump's fault though, right?
So three years in AT&T will have $30 Billion US Dollars
And what did that buy our peoples
1,000 layoffs per Billion?
I thought the wealthy would share and help their fellow citizens? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | But underemployment is better than unemployment is it not?
| Quote: | Despite the fact that the majority of Americans say they're living paycheck to paycheck, the average person spends $483 per month on non-essential expenses, Charles Schwab found.
It's easy to let your spending get out of hand, especially if you're not tracking your expenses to see where your money goes. It may feel as if you're stretching every dollar and can't afford to set any money aside in your retirement fund or savings account, but you're probably spending more than you think on things you don't need. |
Here’s another excerpt from that second article and I’ve long thought that is a huge problem in my generation and is a huge contributor to the paycheck to paycheck issue.
Wage growth needs to improve. I totally agree. How do you think we can do that and what democratic candidates do you see being able implement policies that will get it done? |
I guess underemployment is better than unemployment, in the same way drowning is better than being burned alive. It's technically better. But still not something you want to see.
I wish they explained what is considered non-essential expenses. I've seen some consider cell phones, not using public transportation, eating foods that have nutritional value, and internet access as non-essential expenses. Similar to underemployment, having any quality of life is ignored to a scary degree.
Both Bernie and Warren support increasing the minimum wage drastically. Among other policies that can lessen the ever growing divide in income and wealth inequality.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:31 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, some say that this is a really good economy. Is it, and if it is, for whom?
According to PEW, Americans believe the economy is
Helping a lot or a little, wealthy Americans > > 69% - 10%
Hurting a lot or a little, the middle class > > > 58% - 32%
Hurting a lot or a little, people who are poor > 64% - 27% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^That is exactly what a Republican wants to see ribeye^^
The money is going to their handlers (bleep) everyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
70 year old man verbally attacks 16yr old girl
Projects that "She" needs Anger Management because he is mad he didn't win
Time "Person of the Year
He has made FAAAAYKE!! TIME Magazine covers and hung it in his office
Now the actual scum is attacking a Child *Hey Baron can you help Greta or is your Dad to busy "Being Best'? I hope you will enjoy living in Russia
*We should probably never say Trump "says" something because they're all lies or projection
BTW his team of scum buckets already took her Time cover and morphed his ugly face onto her body
Thanks Republican voters. ^^^Thats your guy. YOUR PRESIDENT
Last edited by ContagiousInspiration on Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Not as pressing as it is made out to be" re climate change is the new GOP talking point (BGH, this is why you keep being accused of being a closeted Republican, because while you give lip service to independence, you argue pretty doctrinaire GOP talking points). It was a hoax ( that one is still used simultaneously with it's not that bad), then it was a natural cycle, now it is real but exaggerated (despite the fact that the much reviled Al Gore movie, lampooned as alarmist, was actually underselling the timeline as it turns out). I've seen signs that we are moving into "it's bad, but we can't afford to fix it" and, "there's nothing we can do it is too late" (that one has a lot of irony).
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | But underemployment is better than unemployment is it not?
| Quote: | Despite the fact that the majority of Americans say they're living paycheck to paycheck, the average person spends $483 per month on non-essential expenses, Charles Schwab found.
It's easy to let your spending get out of hand, especially if you're not tracking your expenses to see where your money goes. It may feel as if you're stretching every dollar and can't afford to set any money aside in your retirement fund or savings account, but you're probably spending more than you think on things you don't need. |
Here’s another excerpt from that second article and I’ve long thought that is a huge problem in my generation and is a huge contributor to the paycheck to paycheck issue.
Wage growth needs to improve. I totally agree. How do you think we can do that and what democratic candidates do you see being able implement policies that will get it done? |
I guess underemployment is better than unemployment, in the same way drowning is better than being burned alive. It's technically better. But still not something you want to see.
I wish they explained what is considered non-essential expenses. I've seen some consider cell phones, not using public transportation, eating foods that have nutritional value, and internet access as non-essential expenses. Similar to underemployment, having any quality of life is ignored to a scary degree.
Both Bernie and Warren support increasing the minimum wage drastically. Among other policies that can lessen the ever growing divide in income and wealth inequality. |
And who is this average person, and what is their income?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I feel a Dave Ramsey lecture coming on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee failed to focus on many instances of Trump's corruption in these hearings. I would have liked to hear more about his defrauding Trump University of students, defrauding Trump Foundation charity donors, paying hush money to porn stars, having his children make money off his presidency and his self dealing a government contract to host the G-7 summit at Doral.
They should have brought all of these up over and over and over again, in order to combat the ridiculous Republican argument that Trump was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine and not Biden.
Some have brought it up, but I think they should have worked in unison to bring it up, since they've been yapping all day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
focus
Star Player
Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | So, some say that this is a really good economy. Is it, and if it is, for whom?
According to PEW, Americans believe the economy is
Helping a lot or a little, wealthy Americans > > 69% - 10%
Hurting a lot or a little, the middle class > > > 58% - 32%
Hurting a lot or a little, people who are poor > 64% - 27% |
As someone who believes evidence shows that voters' perception of the economy is what almost always makes the difference in "peace"time (even when the actual economy differs from that perception), what stands out to me is that 56% of all adults say the economy is "Excellent/good". Some portion of the remaining 44% believe it's "fair". Trump gets reelected as the incumbent if things don't dramatically change politically, economically or other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As other peoples around the world begin to push back against creeping totalitarianism, and given the impending results of the UK general election, I'd like to workshop the term "anglo-fascism" here with the fine folks of the LG.com politics thread.
"Anglo-fascism:" y/n?
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | As other peoples around the world begin to push back against creeping totalitarianism, and given the impending results of the UK general election, I'd like to workshop the term "anglo-fascism" here with the fine folks of the LG.com politics thread.
"Anglo-fascism:" y/n? |
Interesting. Just yesterday my mind was thinking of a new Acronym for WASP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24165
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | "Not as pressing as it is made out to be" re climate change is the new GOP talking point (BGH, this is why you keep being accused of being a closeted Republican, because while you give lip service to independence, you argue pretty doctrinaire GOP talking points). It was a hoax ( that one is still used simultaneously with it's not that bad), then it was a natural cycle, now it is real but exaggerated (despite the fact that the much reviled Al Gore movie, lampooned as alarmist, was actually underselling the timeline as it turns out). I've seen signs that we are moving into "it's bad, but we can't afford to fix it" and, "there's nothing we can do it is too late" (that one has a lot of irony). |
This. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddiejonze
Star Player
Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7228
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"HOW JOE BIDEN GOT HIS GROOVE BACK"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/politics/joe-biden-2020-democrats/index.html
| Quote: | | In the Real Clear Politics national polling average, Biden has now opened up a double-digit lead over his nearest competitor -- Sanders. That's a remarkable change since early October when Warren had actually overtaken Biden in the RCP national average. |
| Quote: | | While none of those poll numbers make Biden a lock to win any state -- with the possible exception of South Carolina -- it shows that he is ahead or very close to the lead in virtually every state set to vote over the first six weeks of the nomination contest. |
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24165
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO it boils down to this -- people are afraid Trump will win and they want a safe white daddy-figure to rescue them. That is the beginning, middle and end of Biden's poll support, IMO. He didn't "do" anything to "get his groove back." The media did it's usual job of magnifying "flaws" in women and candidates of color candidates while giving the white men a big fat pass (it's called white male privilege).
I'm resigned to him being the nominee. but hearing the other day that he is actually telegraphing that fact that he only wants to serve one term and won't run for re-election makes me even angrier that he jumped into the race at all.
Whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13727
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trump has tweeted 108 times today.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
