Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because the chosen approach has ramifications.  If the house has termites, one sure fire way to get rid of 'em is to burn down the house.  An ineffecive way to get rid of ;em without burning down the house is to try to catch 'em one by one and put 'em in a jar.  Using the house as a metaphor for the country, we all share the place, and all want the bugs out.  Some of us would be OK sleeping in the yard while we rebuild the house in blocks so that we don't ever get termites again, some of us would die from exposure.   So - yeah, the "how" kinda does matter.  

Trump is burning down the neighborhood.  Nothing Conservative about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

If David Duke is applauding Laura Ingraham's rant on immigrants ruining America we aren't projecting it's racist.

it's not "left" vs. " right" on this. It's "right" vs. "left and center". The racism and xenophobia members of the Republican party - like Stewart in VA - are defendin and/or channeling is deeply toxic to many people.

The first?  If you agree with something that someone you absolutely hate does, does that make the thing you agree upon wrong?   Illegal immigration DOES drive cost, and create problems for many citizens in this country.  Discounting the people who've had to deal with those problems by calling them racists because you don't like how someone else described the problem isn't right or fair.  I actually think that the one thing I could point to that Trump has tried to do was to get an actual bill passed to address the DACA folks - he went about it the wrong way, but, I think that getting something signed into law is the right thing to do.  

The second - no argument whatsoever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because the chosen approach has ramifications.  If the house has termites, one sure fire way to get rid of 'em is to burn down the house.  An ineffecive way to get rid of ;em without burning down the house is to try to catch 'em one by one and put 'em in a jar.  Using the house as a metaphor for the country, we all share the place, and all want the bugs out.  Some of us would be OK sleeping in the yard while we rebuild the house in blocks so that we don't ever get termites again, some of us would die from exposure.   So - yeah, the "how" kinda does matter.  

The how only matters to certain groups. No matter the method,  one group gets more beneficial treatment over the other. Now thats politics!

In your example. Burn the house down. Rebuild with steel and concrete.  Termite problem solved. Of course,  we're assuming the termites are the problem. .....

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

YOU see that.  I think that what you see is a projection, and that your approach isn't tryng to fix anything, its intentionally trying to diminish the real concerns that people have.  If you aren't interested in trying to understand why people feel that way, then why do you think that anyone should expend the effort to understand or accept your perspective?   Your  idea of a "win" seems to be making sure someone else loses.   

Here is what I see...Trumpkins filmed by the New York Times. Like it or not, it's the current face of the Republican Party. You all welcomed these people with open arms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The first?  If you agree with something that someone you absolutely hate does, does that make the thing you agree upon wrong?   Illegal immigration DOES drive cost, and create problems for many citizens in this country.  Discounting the people who've had to deal with those problems by calling them racists because you don't like how someone else described the problem isn't right or fair.  I actually think that the one thing I could point to that Trump has tried to do was to get an actual bill passed to address the DACA folks - he went about it the wrong way, but, I think that getting something signed into law is the right thing to do.  

The second - no argument whatsoever.  

You used to make some sense occasionally, or at least present an argument from a coherent world view.  This is incoherent rambling suitable for dog or jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of republicans want Trump to have power to shut down media.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Pretty simple actually - self reliance, self determination, personal independence, evaluating the likely outcome of a change before jumping headfirst, limiting governmental intrusion into daily life,  and expecting the same consideration from others that I'd expect to afford them.   I think that a strong family is imperative to a child's successful development, and that many of the social problems we're facing are best addressed by focusing on the kids.  That perspective means that there are some absolute wrong/right decisions, and that we should all do much more to encourage the right ones, and discourage the wrong ones

I respect everything ya wrote. 

I’d say my perspective on the above is to request conservatives apply the same ideas above to the real world practice of redlining and the impact that has had on minority wealth. The impact offshoring bank accounts (á la Manafort, Gates, Trump, Ross, and the rest of the millionaire/billionaire set) has on their enjoying the benefits of US regulation while escaping the costs. I’d ask conservatives to realize how billions of $ worth of access to natural resources, power of awarding contracts/crony capitalism has made the playing field non-level. 

Prison contracts, defense contracts, etc reveals our government to be picking winners and therefore losers every day. There is a non-random way that all this happens: wars are started and the, ohmigosh! The VPs ex company makes trillions. 

Meanwhile, prison sentences are awarded for marijuana possessions that robs decades of life and saddles non violent offenders with convictions that prevent future employment and condemn families to impoverishment. Bankers tank economies and no one goes to jail, but a 13yr old girl steals snacks and gets Tazed. 

There is a whole lot of wealthy privilege that relies upon governmental largesse that gets ignored by so-called conservatives who bridle at making sure kids get healthcare and families have food. These programs are scrutinized and cut with a sanctimonious level level of fervor that would make a reverend proud. 

But de Vos awards her for-profit “universities” an easier regulatory environment for defrauding students, and “conservatives” say meh or applaud reducing regulation. 

I disagree with how conservatives only focus on cutting those social, healthcare and transportation programs that only help minorities and the poor. Focus on cutting or reducing the benefits the rich enjoy before you take food programs away from the poor or say you can’t afford subsidized healthcare for millions, even though studies show it’s cheaper in the long run.

Otherwise its economic hypocrisy you are preaching, not conservativism. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Trump barely knows Stone.  Would have a hard time picking him out of a room.  

NO COLLUSION  NO COLLUSION   NO COLLUSION   NO COLLUSION.

COLLUSION, BUT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

Do you not see the  #4 at DOJ funneling information from a source the FBI has formally dismissed as untrustworthy to the FBI as problematic?

The FBI didn't dismiss the source as untrustworthy, they cut ties with him because he talked the the media. They made no claims as to his trustworthiness. Your question asks about an imagined scenario, so you can imagine your own answer - I'm not playing that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

No no no, Trump is a "hands off" kind of presidential candidate. and Hands Off President. Never discusses anything with anyone except his kids..er..is that form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2018 at 10:29 PM, Mike G said:

Seriously.  You can take a "clip" of anybody and get an unflattering photo op.

If you have a gripe about somebody, lay it out for us to see.

If you have a 1/60 second snapshot of their facial expressions then get a life.

I photograph  people.....there's bad moments.  

Let those go.

You're no fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RKoch said:

Here is what I see...Trumpkins filmed by the New York Times. Like it or not, it's the current face of the Republican Party. You all welcomed these people with open arms.

 

Patriotic Amerikans.

 

The worst America has to offer and they are Trumps bedrock support.

How fucked is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Patriotic Amerikans.

 

The worst America has to offer and they are Trumps bedrock support.

How fucked is that?

Not fucked at all. They look like a bunch of incels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incel. New word for me. Its perfect.

 

It's almost as though some spotty, pubescent ,  serial masturbater nerd hears a word and then decides to adopt it and then be it. All just to feel part of a tribe of spotty, pubescent serial masturbaters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Noose Tightens As Robert Mueller Likely Has The NRA's Tax Returns

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/09/the-noose-tightens-as-robert-mueller-likely-has-the-nras-tax-returns.html 

Posted on Thu, Aug 9th, 2018 by Jason Easley 
The Noose Tightens As Robert Mueller Likely Has The NRA’s Tax Returns 


The NRA’s problems might be even worse than imagined as legal experts say that Mueller already has their tax returns, according to MSNBC’s Ari Melber. 

Video @ link: 

Melber said, “On the investigative side, Bob Mueller can subpoena the NRA’s tax records and legal experts tell us it’s highly likely Mueller already has them from at least the years around the election based on the kind of moves he’s been making. So it does go back to the famous phrase follow the money. We also know some of that money was spent as far back as 2013. That’s when NRA leadership jumped at the chance to visit Moscow for a talk about gun policy.” 

The NRA’s trip to Russia in 2013 is interesting because according to both intelligence experts, and the Mueller investigation that is around the time that Russia began to put together their operation to divide and disrupt in the United States. The Russian division efforts are different from their election interference although the two did come together in support of Donald Trump in 2016. 

The NRA has some huge problems. There is the Maria Butina scandal. They are also under federal investigation for potentially laundering money from Putin to Trump during the 2016 election, and they have become such an insurance risk that they may have to close down NRATV because they can’t get media liability insurance. 

If Mueller has their tax returns, that means that he can likely prove the NRA/Russia connection. A group that hid behind the flag and the Second Amendment could be set to be exposed for helping Russia attack the United States of America. 

The worst thing ever to happen to the far right was Donald Trump winning the 2016 election.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

The FBI didn't dismiss the source as untrustworthy, they cut ties with him because he talked the the media. They made no claims as to his trustworthiness. Your question asks about an imagined scenario, so you can imagine your own answer - I'm not playing that game.

Do you not see the  #4 at DOJ funneling information from a source the FBI has formally dismissed for leaking to the media to the FBI as problematic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RKoch said:

Here is what I see...Trumpkins filmed by the New York Times. Like it or not, it's the current face of the Republican Party. You all welcomed these people with open arms.

 

It's worse than anyone thought would happen.

But it has been proven that there are enough of these people in the US to elect a racist fuckwit for President.

Do they constitute the Majority of white people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dog said:

Do you not see the  #4 at DOJ funneling information from a source the FBI has formally dismissed for leaking to the media to the FBI as problematic?

Not as long as he was considered a trustworthy source providing credible information to the DOJ. I understand why the FBI might want to cut ties with him, but until he was shown to be a non-credible source, I also understand the DOJ looking into the information he provided regarding potential criminal activity. 

Would you like to try another angle or do you think you've failed at the attempts to malign the DOJ enough for one day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Not as long as he was considered a trustworthy source providing credible information to the DOJ. I understand why the FBI might want to cut ties with him, but until he was shown to be a non-credible source, I also understand the DOJ looking into the information he provided regarding potential criminal activity. 

Would you like to try another angle or do you think you've failed at the attempts to malign the DOJ enough for one day?

No...I just wanted to make you squirm a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

No...I just wanted to make you squirm a bit.

You failed and instead showed your willingness to make shit up about your FBI in an attempt to make an Aussie "squirm"

Do you ever tire of punching yourself in the dick, Dog? :rolleyes: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

You failed and instead showed your willingness to make shit up about your FBI in an attempt to make an Aussie "squirm"

Do you ever tire of punching yourself in the dick, Dog? :rolleyes: 

Ha...We're done for now...Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Ha...We're done for now...Thanks.

You have company around whilst punching yourself in the dick? That's creepy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drip drip drip

"Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is preparing subpoenas for Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, according to two congressional sources familiar with the matter"....

..."Jordan said it was "crazy" that federal officials would be having contacts with individuals working at an opposition research firm that was digging up dirt on the Republican presidential nominee".

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/401193-gop-chairman-set-to-issue-steele-dossier-subpoenas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Drip drip drip

"Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is preparing subpoenas for Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, according to two congressional sources familiar with the matter"....

..."Jordan said it was "crazy" that federal officials would be having contacts with individuals working at an opposition research firm that was digging up dirt on the Republican presidential nominee".

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/401193-gop-chairman-set-to-issue-steele-dossier-subpoenas

Republicans trying to run interference without actually stating that the actions of Bruce Ohr, his wife, or Glenn Simpson broke the law. Thanks for highlighting the emptiness of their position for us again Dog, but I thought you were done punching yourself in the dick for the night?

 

Something for you to note:

Quote

The FBI continued to view Steele as reliable even after they stopped using him as a source, terminating their relationship with Steele over his improper contacts with the press.

Steele's reliability seems a good reason for the DOJ to keep in contact with him, Republican Jordan's opinion notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Drip drip drip

"Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is preparing subpoenas for Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, according to two congressional sources familiar with the matter"....

..."Jordan said it was "crazy" that federal officials would be having contacts with individuals working at an opposition research firm that was digging up dirt on the Republican presidential nominee".

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/401193-gop-chairman-set-to-issue-steele-dossier-subpoenas

Good point @Dog, federal officials should turn a blind eye to those with dirt on Republicans. They should only talk to people who give Republicans glowing reviews and have no useful intelligence!

Otherwise, how can senior members of the administration get away with falsified national security statements? How can they meet with Russian agents in Trump Tower without it coming to the attention of our national security apparatus? And why couldn’t they just leave Jared alone to set up back channel communications through the Russian embassy?

Its just horrible that the DOJ would stoop to speaking with knowledgeable persons skilled in Russian intelligence operations, who have been reliable and valuable allies in the past. They should only speak with toothless Trumpets who salivate at the feet of President Bone Spurs: they are the only reliable Americans. 

Oh. & Fire all Democrats in the DOJ, immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

Drip drip drip

"Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is preparing subpoenas for Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, according to two congressional sources familiar with the matter"....

..."Jordan said it was "crazy" that federal officials would be having contacts with individuals working at an opposition research firm that was digging up dirt on the Republican presidential nominee".

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/401193-gop-chairman-set-to-issue-steele-dossier-subpoenas

 

Why would it be "CRAZY" for federal officials to look for evidence supporting the medias constant reporting of the many flaws with their candidate?  To prove, or disprove, either way.  It would be crazy for them NOT to seek the truth, because the truth is going to come out sooner or later....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Good point @Dog, federal officials should turn a blind eye to those with dirt on Republicans. They should only talk to people who give Republicans glowing reviews and have no useful intelligence!

Otherwise, how can senior members of the administration get away with falsified national security statements? How can they meet with Russian agents in Trump Tower without it coming to the attention of our national security apparatus? And why couldn’t they just leave Jared alone to set up back channel communications through the Russian embassy?

Its just horrible that the DOJ would stoop to speaking with knowledgeable persons skilled in Russian intelligence operations, who have been reliable and valuable allies in the past. They should only speak with toothless Trumpets who salivate at the feet of President Bone Spurs: they are the only reliable Americans. 

Oh. & Fire all Democrats in the DOJ, immediately.

Did you see the story about Feinstein's driver being a Chinese spy? The FBI alerted her that they had suspicions about the guy. If that's their procedure why do you suppose they didn't alert Trump of their suspicions about Carter Page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Why would it be "CRAZY" for federal officials to look for evidence supporting the medias constant reporting of the many flaws with their candidate?  To prove, or disprove, either way.  It would be crazy for them NOT to seek the truth, because the truth is going to come out sooner or later....

It's the cozy relationship between those conducting investigations on behalf of the government and those conducting opposition research on behalf of a presidential candidate that merits investigation. Fair-minded people want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

It's the cozy relationship between those conducting investigations on behalf of the government and those conducting opposition research on behalf of a presidential candidate that merits investigation. Fair-minded people want to know.

DogLovesTrump.jpg.7d8bdffdef8787f2911564d456764508.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I hadn’t heard about Diane’s driver. I do know, tho, that Trump was first warned about Michael Flynn by then President Obama two days after the election, but Trump entrusted our national security to Flynn anyways. Trump then fired the acting Atty General after her warning to the president that Russia knew Flynn had lied to the FBI was reported. 

Trump ignores warnings and shoots the messenger. Is that a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Nope, I hadn’t heard about Diane’s driver. I do know, tho, that Trump was first warned about Michael Flynn by then President Obama two days after the election, but Trump entrusted our national security to Flynn anyways. Trump then fired the acting Atty General after her warning to the president that Russia knew Flynn had lied to the FBI was reported. 

Trump ignores warnings and shoots the messenger. Is that a problem?

I agree with Trump's assessment of Flynn. Even the agents that interviewed him did not think he lied. Flynn is colateral damage.

But your right about Trumps shooting from the hip. He needs to learn when to shut up but I doubt he ever will.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

. Trump then fired the acting Atty General after her warning to the president that Russia knew Flynn had lied to the FBI was reported. 

 

I thought yates got fired for stating her doj would not support the donald's travel ban xo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do they constitute the Majority of white people?"

No, but they're probably about 20% of the population.  With the President, and other national politicians, pandering to them.

I think a large portion of the discontent about politics right now is the unwillingness of those directing policy (or obstructing it) to address issues that a majority of the population supports.

51% support single payer

57% support legal abortion

83% support pathway to citizenship

53% support affirmative action on campus

62% oppose the border wall

61% support legalization of marijuana

67% support an assault rifle ban

61% support reducing military spending

61% support labor unions

62% support more action to protect the enviroment

And yet, the only legislation enacted under this administration has been a tax cut greatly benefiting the wealthiest.  Is there any wonder frustration is building when political leaders don't even pretend to listen to the American people? 

Note: most numbers from Pew, some from Galllup and a couple from Quinnipinnac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's the cozy relationship between those conducting investigations on behalf of the government and those conducting opposition research on behalf of a presidential candidate that merits investigation. Fair-minded people want to know.

 

"Fair-minded people" did not vote for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I respect everything ya wrote. 

I’d say my perspective on the above is to request conservatives apply the same ideas above to the real world practice of redlining and the impact that has had on minority wealth. The impact offshoring bank accounts (á la Manafort, Gates, Trump, Ross, and the rest of the millionaire/billionaire set) has on their enjoying the benefits of US regulation while escaping the costs. I’d ask conservatives to realize how billions of $ worth of access to natural resources, power of awarding contracts/crony capitalism has made the playing field non-level. 

Prison contracts, defense contracts, etc reveals our government to be picking winners and therefore losers every day. There is a non-random way that all this happens: wars are started and the, ohmigosh! The VPs ex company makes trillions. 

Meanwhile, prison sentences are awarded for marijuana possessions that robs decades of life and saddles non violent offenders with convictions that prevent future employment and condemn families to impoverishment. Bankers tank economies and no one goes to jail, but a 13yr old girl steals snacks and gets Tazed. 

There is a whole lot of wealthy privilege that relies upon governmental largesse that gets ignored by so-called conservatives who bridle at making sure kids get healthcare and families have food. These programs are scrutinized and cut with a sanctimonious level level of fervor that would make a reverend proud. 

But de Vos awards her for-profit “universities” an easier regulatory environment for defrauding students, and “conservatives” say meh or applaud reducing regulation. 

I disagree with how conservatives only focus on cutting those social, healthcare and transportation programs that only help minorities and the poor. Focus on cutting or reducing the benefits the rich enjoy before you take food programs away from the poor or say you can’t afford subsidized healthcare for millions, even though studies show it’s cheaper in the long run.

Otherwise its economic hypocrisy you are preaching, not conservativism. 

There's a lot of truth in what you wrote, Philly - but, the other side of that con is that much of that government largesse creates employment opportunities for large swaths of our population.  Yeah, Lockheed/BAE/ execs make $$, and executive compensation, especially for defense contractors, warrants scrutiny, and the tax policies that encourage isolating capital from the economy need to change. 

BUT - a large part of that government spending is paid out in salaries to engineers, scientists, etc who are working diligently to create technology that benefits everyone.  Internet?  Google Earth? GPS? Radar?   Trauma remediation?   All of those things have come from the largesse that you mention, and all of those things provide a worldwide benefit.  I agree with your point, my counter is intended to show that even if you don't like parts of it?  It's not all bad.  

As to "bridling if kids get healthcare and families get food" - you're right - there's indeed something to that, especially for the people who are busting their butts and sacrificing to make sure that they are providing those things for their own families.  It's maddening to see someone pull out an EBT card to pay for a cart of groceries that you can't afford, getting into a nicer car than the one you drive.   The people who want everyone to be as self sufficient as possible don't all feel that way out of a sense of mean-ness, they feel, and rightly so, like many are getting a free ride that THEY are paying for, and if that free ride is better than what they're bustin' their butts to achieve?  Why work so hard at it?   

I don't offer this to suggest that we do away with social programs, I think that the cost of dealing w/people who aren't fed and healthy would be much greater, and the negative social impacts much worse than providing those who can't/won't take care of themselves with a minimum level of support.  I only wanted to point out that the reasons folks adopt a stance opposite yours may be as valid as your own, and that we should all take a second to consider that before we decide to accept the difference or berate the person for being an idiot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

A bunch did.   

 

IMHO they cannot be "Fair Minded"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's maddening to see someone pull out an EBT card to pay for a cart of groceries that you can't afford, getting into a nicer car than the one you drive."

" gross monthly income to be eligible for SNAP is $1,287 (net $990). For two people, gross is $1,726, net is $1,335.'

https://eligibility.com/food-stamps

Really?

Which group of people draw the most objection?

"Children under age 18: Those under 18 were more likely to receive means-tested benefits than all other age groups.

                o   In an average month, 39.2 percent of children received some type of means-tested
                     benefit, compared with 16.6 percent of people age 18 to 64 and 12.6 percent of people
                     65 and older.

  • The black population: At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.

                o   The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific
                     Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.

  • Female-householder families: At 50 percent, people in female-householder families had the highest rates of participation in major means-tested programs.

                o   The rates for people in married-couple families and male-householder families were 14.7
                     percent and 29.5 percent, respectively.

  • Non-high school graduates: 37.3 percent of people who did not graduate from high school received means-tested benefits.

                o   21.6 percent of high school graduates and 9.6 percent of individuals with one or more
                     years of college participated in one of the major means-tested government assistance
                     programs.

  • The unemployed: In an average month, 33.5 percent of the unemployed received means-tested benefits in an average month of 2012.

                o   By comparison, 25.3 percent of those not in the labor force, 17.6 percent of part-time
                     workers, and 6.7 percent of full-time workers participated in means-tested programs."

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There's a lot of truth in what you wrote, Philly - but, the other side of that con is that much of that government largesse creates employment opportunities for large swaths of our population.  Yeah, Lockheed/BAE/ execs make $$, and executive compensation, especially for defense contractors, warrants scrutiny, and the tax policies that encourage isolating capital from the economy need to change. 

BUT - a large part of that government spending is paid out in salaries to engineers, scientists, etc who are working diligently to create technology that benefits everyone.  Internet?  Google Earth? GPS? Radar?   Trauma remediation?   All of those things have come from the largesse that you mention, and all of those things provide a worldwide benefit.  I agree with your point, my counter is intended to show that even if you don't like parts of it?  It's not all bad.  

As to "bridling if kids get healthcare and families get food" - you're right - there's indeed something to that, especially for the people who are busting their butts and sacrificing to make sure that they are providing those things for their own families.  It's maddening to see someone pull out an EBT card to pay for a cart of groceries that you can't afford, getting into a nicer car than the one you drive.   The people who want everyone to be as self sufficient as possible don't all feel that way out of a sense of mean-ness, they feel, and rightly so, like many are getting a free ride that THEY are paying for, and if that free ride is better than what they're bustin' their butts to achieve?  Why work so hard at it?   

I don't offer this to suggest that we do away with social programs, I think that the cost of dealing w/people who aren't fed and healthy would be much greater, and the negative social impacts much worse than providing those who can't/won't take care of themselves with a minimum level of support.  I only wanted to point out that the reasons folks adopt a stance opposite yours may be as valid as your own, and that we should all take a second to consider that before we decide to accept the difference or berate the person for being an idiot.  

“Well”, I’d say to the pissed off lower middle class guy or gal, “the reason you are not pissed off at the guy getting chauffeured in his government contract paid-for limo is you never see him pay for his third home.” You never realize that he’s structured his deal using ex-Congresscritter lawyers and is off to make a mistake on your  Mortgage which may leave you homeless, but never fear, he will get his bonus this year. As well as tax break. And a new rule on capital gains tax that will save him & his cronies hundreds of thousands that we will now have to pay for. 

Unless & until Conservatives face the actual reality of monetary and economic policies, as long as they ignore the social injustice inherent in our system, they ignore the true welfare recipients that bleed our nation’s citizens dry. 

I disagree that these are just opposite sides of a coin. Taking back the millions given yearly to the rich is not evil. Is does not harm their access to healthcare, avoidance of debtors prisons and hope for their kids’ future. Conservatives sadly pull the rug out from under the working poor, but say it’s because of their principles.

No way can I condone that. Own up to the modern oligarchy and the aristocratic 9% who allow the process to continue. I believe that’s you and me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

“Well”, I’d say to the pissed off lower middle class guy or gal, “the reason you are not pushed off at the guy getting chauffeured in his government contract paid-for limo is you never see him. You never realize that he’s structured his deal using ex-Congresscritter lawyers and is off to make a mistake on your  Mortgage, but never fear, he will get his bonus this year. As well as tax break. And a new rule on capital gains tax that will save him & his cronies hundreds of thousands that we will now have to pay for. 

Unless & until Conservatives face the actual reality of monetary and economic policies, as long as they ignore the social injustice inherent in our system, they ignore the true welfare recipients that bleed our nation’s citizens dry. 

I disagree that these are opposite sides of a coin. Taking back the millions given yearly to the rich is not evil. Is does not harm their access to healthcare, avoidance of debtors prisons and hope for their kids’ future. Conservatives gleeful pull the rug out from under the working poor and say it’s because of their principles.

No way can I condone that. Own up to the modern oligarchy and the aristocratic 9% who allow the process to continue. I believe that’s you and me.

Edited to add:  The 1st paragraph?  Yeah - we agree in principle.  That's why I mentioned adjsting tax policy to not favor isolating capital from the economy.  Even doing that perfectly won't change the attitudes of those who feel that they are owed a living, nor the anger that those who are working hard to try to take care of themselves feel towards people who hold that opinion. 

To the bolded part: Do you think you deserve your salary, and should be able to do with it as you see fit?  Do you need as nice a house/boat/car as you've got?  Your kids could go to Rowan - they don't need Drexel, UPenn, etc...

What specifically do you want to implement to establish this nebulous idea of fairness?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you think you deserve your salary, and should be able to do with it as you see fit?  What specifically do you want to implement to establish this nebulous idea of fairness?  

 

Democratic Socialism at some level would be modern and fair.  Many successful First World countries have been doing it for decades.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do you think you deserve your salary, and should be able to do with it as you see fit?  "

All of it? No. I, like most citizens, derive tremendous social benefits from living here but have no expectation that it is free.  Public education, roads, socialized law enforcement and judgement, water supplies, regulated utilities, socialized national defense, clean air regulations, socially supported food supply,  Social Security and Medicare for the aged, Workman's Comp for those injured on the job, TANIF to give kids a chance at better health...

Government policies ALWAYS favor one group over another, the only question is who gains; it would be nice if the policies more closely hewed to what the public wants rather than ideologues.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you think you deserve your salary, and should be able to do with it as you see fit?  What specifically do you want to implement to establish this nebulous idea of fairness?  

Fairness? Fairness left the building on taxation policy billions of dollars in deficit spending ago. Current Republican dogma is generational theft. Stealing from future generations to subsidize the old and affluent of today.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn’t say it any better than the last couple of posts.

I see my role as working hard and paying into a system which has brought me great benefit. I believe I would derive wealth, opportunity and safety from a well educated population which receives healthcare without the ever-present risk of bankruptcy looming behind the next CT scan or blood test. 

My kids are safer if all kids got free vaccines, and shared experiences on the playground. I therefore am in favor of strong public schools and very low cost sports programs. 

Inner city public transportation allows kids to attend schools of their choice and all classes to escape vehicular traffic while democratizing access to jobs and services. 

Inter city fast rail could expand business & travel opportunities while easing congestion at airports. 

“Defense” spending should be separated into “defense” and “offense” spending, so we can more carefully calibrate spending choices. Given our recent track record, we’ve lost & misspent more money here than anywhere else as a nation for very poor returns. Not sure expanding our warlike ethos into space is s good idea.

All this costs money, and I deserve to pay my share. I don’t want a free ride, and the wealth gap combined with variable access to healthcare is a greater national security risk, IMO, than ISIS. ISIS cannot destroy us, but we can tear ourselves apart with civil divisions and disorder.

But, social programs are less sexy than a new fighter plane. So, despite the ROI of free college vastly outweighing a jobs program, “Conservatives” will fund Northrop Grumman before they feed & teach all our kids.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know that y'all are allowed to send in more to the federal goverment than your income tax warrants?   I wonder how many of you calling for the implementation of more socialism are doing/are willing to do that.   As to the plight of the poor that y'all are bemoaning, how much respobnsibility for that plight do you expect society to bear for them? 

Philly - you do have a point w/defense spending. Lots of it is absurd - and one change I've been espousing for years is to combine all our services into a single US defense force.  Keep the best of each capability that's necessary to support our strategic and tactical objectives, and meld it into a single, cohesive entity.  It's dumb for the services to compete for $$, to spend money on duplicate capabilities, let the overall mission dictate the budget.  

So - y'all think you've got it all figured out - tell me how you see it working out if you were permitted free reign to make every change you want.   Let's keep everything within the realm of reality - and see what ya come up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

A bunch did.   

A bunch of people voted for him , but I couldn't call even one of them fair-minded.

The choice was between a boring status-quo candidate that was not going to be much different than the last one that wasn't all that different from the one before that and a utterly incompetent barely literate narcissistic sexual predator with no discernible policies that had a chance of working in the real world and no consistency even in the span of one day that openly asked a foreign government to spy on his opponent.

This was not a choice between competing visions of allocating budgets between social goods and military contractors. There was no contest of ideas between social democratic ideas,  mercantilism, national industrial policy, libertarianism, or anything else.

It was boring versus flailing mental illness and barely disguised hate. There was no fair in there anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You do know that y'all are allowed to send in more to the federal goverment than your income tax warrants?   I wonder how many of you calling for the implementation of more socialism are doing/are willing to do that.   As to the plight of the poor that y'all are bemoaning, how much respobnsibility for that plight do you expect society to bear for them? 

Philly - you do have a point w/defense spending. Lots of it is absurd - and one change I've been espousing for years is to combine all our services into a single US defense force.  Keep the best of each capability that's necessary to support our strategic and tactical objectives, and meld it into a single, cohesive entity.  It's dumb for the services to compete for $$, to spend money on duplicate capabilities, let the overall mission dictate the budget.  

So - y'all think you've got it all figured out - tell me how you see it working out if you were permitted free reign to make every change you want.   Let's keep everything within the realm of reality - and see what ya come up with. 

I would LOVE to see our health care make it up to 1st world standards and would have 0 problem paying taxes for this to happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Drip drip drip

"Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is preparing subpoenas for Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, according to two congressional sources familiar with the matter"....

..."Jordan said it was "crazy" that federal officials would be having contacts with individuals working at an opposition research firm that was digging up dirt on the Republican presidential nominee".

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/401193-gop-chairman-set-to-issue-steele-dossier-subpoenas

As Nunes said, they’ve only got a couple months to make as much noise as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You do know that y'all are allowed to send in more to the federal goverment than your income tax warrants? "

As silly a suggestion as Hoover's "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" and for the same reasons; the problems are larger than individual efforts can solve.

Why not try something we know works? Clinton had the last surplus; let's go back to the tax/spending structure of that administration with inflation adjusted spending levels and adjust from there. Or even go back to the period of greatest growth in the American Economy, JFK/LBJ rates and levels.

" The prosperous Eisenhower years weren’t all that prosperous, according to this metric. The Bush years, all 12 of them, were the worst of the lot, although the Obama years weren’t much better. Meanwhile, the Carter years were as good as the Reagan years, the Kennedy/Johnson era was amazing, and the Clinton years were pretty great. "

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth

Sorry, couldn't attach the chart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There's a lot of truth in what you wrote, Philly - but, the other side of that con is that much of that government largesse creates employment opportunities for large swaths of our population.  Yeah, Lockheed/BAE/ execs make $$, and executive compensation, especially for defense contractors, warrants scrutiny, and the tax policies that encourage isolating capital from the economy need to change. 

BUT - a large part of that government spending is paid out in salaries to engineers, scientists, etc who are working diligently to create technology that benefits everyone.  Internet?  Google Earth? GPS? Radar?   Trauma remediation?   All of those things have come from the largesse that you mention, and all of those things provide a worldwide benefit.  I agree with your point, my counter is intended to show that even if you don't like parts of it?  It's not all bad.  

As to "bridling if kids get healthcare and families get food" - you're right - there's indeed something to that, especially for the people who are busting their butts and sacrificing to make sure that they are providing those things for their own families.  It's maddening to see someone pull out an EBT card to pay for a cart of groceries that you can't afford, getting into a nicer car than the one you drive.   The people who want everyone to be as self sufficient as possible don't all feel that way out of a sense of mean-ness, they feel, and rightly so, like many are getting a free ride that THEY are paying for, and if that free ride is better than what they're bustin' their butts to achieve?  Why work so hard at it?   

I don't offer this to suggest that we do away with social programs, I think that the cost of dealing w/people who aren't fed and healthy would be much greater, and the negative social impacts much worse than providing those who can't/won't take care of themselves with a minimum level of support.  I only wanted to point out that the reasons folks adopt a stance opposite yours may be as valid as your own, and that we should all take a second to consider that before we decide to accept the difference or berate the person for being an idiot.  

Come on A_Guy. Why lie? I know folks on SNAP. Thy don’t “whip out their card” and buy more expensive food and/or drive more expensive cars. Their clothes are old, the food is the basics, their cars are shit. Unless you saw the 1 in a million fraud case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"You do know that y'all are allowed to send in more to the federal goverment than your income tax warrants? "

As silly a suggestion as Hoover's "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" and for the same reasons; the problems are larger than individual efforts can solve.

Why not try something we know works? Clinton had the last surplus; let's go back to the tax/spending structure of that administration with inflation adjusted spending levels and adjust from there. Or even go back to the period of greatest growth in the American Economy, JFK/LBJ rates and levels.

" The prosperous Eisenhower years weren’t all that prosperous, according to this metric. The Bush years, all 12 of them, were the worst of the lot, although the Obama years weren’t much better. Meanwhile, the Carter years were as good as the Reagan years, the Kennedy/Johnson era was amazing, and the Clinton years were pretty great. "

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth

Sorry, couldn't attach the chart.

 

Here ya go.  Interesting read.  Thanks.

 

Screen Shot 2018-08-10 at 11.31.21 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would LOVE to see our health care make it up to 1st world standards and would have 0 problem paying taxes for this to happen.

We already spend more than anyone else - are you certain that that's the issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

We already spend more than anyone else - are you certain that that's the issue? 

We could easily spend less and get better results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Come on A_Guy. Why lie? I know folks on SNAP. Thy don’t “whip out their card” and buy more expensive food and/or drive more expensive cars. Their clothes are old, the food is the basics, their cars are shit. Unless you saw the 1 in a million fraud case.

So do I - and I wasn't referring to "steak and lobster" -  I was talking about a comparison between a local builder friend who I was in line with at the grocery store when one of our local white-trash 3 babies before 21 single moms w/3 boyfriends (she's a former student of my wife's - we have witnessed her behavior since she was in middle school)  came by w/a cart full of stuff that my friend couldn't afford because he'd just bought books for his daughter (3rd kid) to start her last year of college.  He's driving a 30 yr old ford truck w/390K miles on it, and she put the groceries (while screaming at the one kid old enough to walk by himself to STFU because she was on the phone) into the back of her new(ish) Kia Sorento.  Not a fancy car, but, the point is, that she's living on public assistance, and he's trying to crawl out of the mess left by the burst of the housing bubble, and because he grosses too much, and is self-employed, can't qualilfy for ANY help.   He's raised 3 successful kids, his daughter graduated from VT last year and is working in the finance office for one of the well known colleges in DC.  His oldest son has an engineering degree and is working as a civil engineer in Atlanta, and his younger son is starting out at the bottom with a local manufacturer. 

SO - Even though he's broke - he's a helluva lot more successful, has given and will continue to give more to society than the aforementioned twat, yet the twat gets the help.   Are you going to tell me that either of us are wrong for feeling that there's something outta whack here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

We could easily spend less and get better results.

No argument.  We've had this discussion, and if you need me to repeat how I think we get there, I'm happy to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

We could easily spend less and get better results.

Yes we could and also eliminate the drag on our businesses that have the rather unique burden of their employee's health care*. This is not a thing elsewhere in the developed world. We also spend WAY more to get worse outcomes.

* I know a few successful entrepreneurs and when I asked what their secret was, it was "Have a wife with a job with good benefits or you are hosed".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"You do know that y'all are allowed to send in more to the federal goverment than your income tax warrants? "

As silly a suggestion as Hoover's "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" and for the same reasons; the problems are larger than individual efforts can solve.

Why not try something we know works? Clinton had the last surplus; let's go back to the tax/spending structure of that administration with inflation adjusted spending levels and adjust from there. Or even go back to the period of greatest growth in the American Economy, JFK/LBJ rates and levels.

" The prosperous Eisenhower years weren’t all that prosperous, according to this metric. The Bush years, all 12 of them, were the worst of the lot, although the Obama years weren’t much better. Meanwhile, the Carter years were as good as the Reagan years, the Kennedy/Johnson era was amazing, and the Clinton years were pretty great. "

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth

Sorry, couldn't attach the chart.

 

To the bolded part?  I agree - you're right, there are problems larger than the individual can solve - but, MOST individuals CAN, if not burdened by too many crippling poor decisions on their/their parents part, do something to improve their conditions.  That's a large part of what I meant by "self reliance" in my earlier description.  I'm all for helping people to help themselves, but, with that help ought to come some obligation or expectation of positive results.  I don't see much talk about anything other than "more money", and while it may assuage some who feel guilty for the difference between their personal success and the poor plight of others?  That's not the only thing we need to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So do I - and I wasn't referring to "steak and lobster" -  I was talking about a comparison between a local builder friend who I was in line with at the grocery store when one of our local white-trash 3 babies before 21 single moms w/3 boyfriends (she's a former student of my wife's - we have witnessed her behavior since she was in middle school)  came by w/a cart full of stuff that my friend couldn't afford because he'd just bought books for his daughter (3rd kid) to start her last year of college.  He's driving a 30 yr old ford truck w/390K miles on it, and she put the groceries (while screaming at the one kid old enough to walk by himself to STFU because she was on the phone) into the back of her new(ish) Kia Sorento.  Not a fancy car, but, the point is, that she's living on public assistance, and he's trying to crawl out of the mess left by the burst of the housing bubble, and because he grosses too much, and is self-employed, can't qualilfy for ANY help.   He's raised 3 successful kids, his daughter graduated from VT last year and is working in the finance office for one of the well known colleges in DC.  His oldest son has an engineering degree and is working as a civil engineer in Atlanta, and his younger son is starting out at the bottom with a local manufacturer. 

SO - Even though he's broke - he's a helluva lot more successful, has given and will continue to give more to society than the aforementioned twat, yet the twat gets the help.   Are you going to tell me that either of us are wrong for feeling that there's something outta whack here? 

So the answer is starve her kids?

We DID this here and in Europe. The poor are harder to kill than you might think and they didn't just die quietly. The end result is hugely expensive and disruptive social problems. Cheaper to feed the slappers :rolleyes:

BTW - nothing stopping your buddy from being a bum and seeing what benefits he can get. To anyone used to being a productive member of society, such a life is utter hell. I don't envy those people one bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

So the answer is starve her kids?

We DID this here and in Europe. The poor are harder to kill than you might think and they didn't just die quietly. The end result is hugely expensive and disruptive social problems. Cheaper to feed the slappers :rolleyes:

If that's what you took from my comment, I think that's more a projection on your part than an understanding of what I wrote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

If that's what you took from my comment, I think that's more a projection on your part than an understanding of what I wrote. 

What DID you mean then? Of course it is annoying to support people who are basically useless lazy drug using baby machines. But we tried not doing it and that didn't work out well either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

What DID you mean then? Of course it is annoying to support people who are basically useless lazy drug using baby machines. But we tried not doing it and that didn't work out well either.

Read upstream - to my answer of "what is a conservative" - I don't want anyone to starve, and I said pretty much the same thing you said above in that the cost fiscally and socially of letting them do so is more than the cost of giving them a basic stipend. 

That doesn't fix anything, and instead of pacifying the unwilling by having a system that rewards irresponsible behavior, that we ought to focus more on figuring out how to educate those kids when they're young enough to make a difference. 

I'm not talking 2+2=4, I'm talking about discouraging behavior and decisions that many of their parents made,  telling kids unequivocally that if you go to jail for hurting someone, even if your 13, your life's prospects are dim.  If you have babies - father AND mother - as a kid, your life's prospects are dim.  If you don't learn how to do the things that someone in society is willing to pay you to do, your life's prospects are dim.  We need to hold up positive role models for kids who look like THEY do, so that the kids can identify with them, and understand that yeah, someone like me CAN do better.   We need to instill the idea that yeah, being a basketball star is cool, but, so is being a teacher, mechanic, engineer, nurse, good parent, etc...    Giving the kids hope, and then helping them understand what they need to do and avoid to acheive that hope, is where I think we oughta be focusing.    That's what I meant when I said "it needs to start with the kids"

We'll have to carry the deadweight - not doing so isn't an option,  but, if we can reduce the amount of deadweight we carry?  That's a win, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@A_Guy, your friend got upset at one woman requiring.... $15? 30K$ of taxpayer funds to prevent malnourishment and improve the outlook for three future taxpayers (if they can escape the revolving door of the lowest class). 

Certainly you get pissed off at them when in line at the grocery store... but you ignored the thrust of my earlier post. 

The uber wealthy magnate who has relied on decades of privilege and tax avoidance, crony capitalism and raping the common man has and is draining hundreds of thousands to millions from public and private coffers yearly is invisible on Main Street. He shops at boutiques and in lawyers’ offices. There is much more to be gained going after these grifters than the paltry sum consumed by one individual of lower class needs.

Just this week we were reminded with Wilbur Ross’ malfeassnce, stealing $120 millions from partners and associates on his way to the president’s administration.  Manafort isn’t the only one with millions stashed overseas to avoid paying their fair share. These folks were not pursued with enthusiasm by society, although the scale of their crimes dwarfs the common burglar or dope fiend.

But you never see or meet them in the grocery store, so you reserve your ire for the woman you can see who probably can’t afford the $400 surprise bill around the corner. Upset her financial apple cart, and four people are living out of a Kia. 

But sure, blame your worldly woes on her rather than the bank execs who foreclosed on a substantial portion of our population a few years back. Yep, they all signed the documents, but the system trapped them, took their money and failed to protect them because they were poor, badly educated and vulnerable. Yet again the rich got richer, and the poor to homeless. 

Thats “Conservativism” in America as it is currently practiced. Ignore the enormous waste and theft by the rich and prey on the weak & vulnerable. It is a national security threat, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starving the kids doesn't address the problem, it perpetuates it.

See that the kids are fed, clothed, and educated, so they have the opportunity of breaking the cycle of poverty they were cast into. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

@A_Guy, your friend got upset at one woman requiring.... $15? 30K$ of taxpayer funds to prevent malnourishment and improve the outlook for three future taxpayers (if they can escape the revolving door of the lowest class). 

Certainly you get pissed off at them when in line at the grocery store... but you ignored the thrust of my earlier post. 

The uber wealthy magnate who has relied on decades of privilege and tax avoidance, crony capitalism and raping the common man has and is draining hundreds of thousands to millions from public and private coffers yearly is invisible on Main Street. He shops at boutiques and in lawyers’ offices. There is much more to be gained going after these grifters than the paltry sum consumed by one individual of lower class needs.

Just this week we were reminded with Wilbur Ross’ malfeassnce, stealing $120 millions from partners and associates on his way to the president’s administration.  Manafort isn’t the only one with millions stashed overseas to avoid paying their fair share. These folks were not pursued with enthusiasm by society, although the scale of their crimes dwarfs the common burglar or dope fiend.

But you never see or meet them in the grocery store, so you reserve your ire for the woman you can see who probably can’t afford the $400 surprise bill around the corner. Upset her financial apple cart, and four people are living out of a Kia. 

But sure, blame your worldly woes on her rather than the bank execs who foreclosed on a substantial portion of our population a few years back. Yep, they all signed the documents, but the system trapped them, took their money and failed to protect them because they were poor, badly educated and vulnerable. Yet again the rich got richer, and the poor to homeless. 

Thats “Conservativism” in America as it is currently practiced. Ignore the enormous waste and theft by the rich and prey on the weak & vulnerable. It is a national security threat, IMO.

 

 

Bears repeating!  8 Million lost their jobs or incomes in the last recession, 7 million lost their homes.  I am acquainted with a few hard working people among them.  Anyone who has not read or seen "The Big Short", should do so now, because it will happen again, mark these words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Starving the kids doesn't address the problem, it perpetuates it.

Yes but you'll admit that starving kids creates crime thereby necessitating more police and prisons and thus employing the right sort of people. What we're really talking about here is the freedom to starve the kids. It's actually the Third Freedom: Freedom To Starve Kids. It's right after the Second Freedom: Freedom To Buy Military Grade Hardware To Kill Varmints and the First Freedom: Freedom To Run Over Protesters. However, it is ahead of the Fourth Freedom: Freedom To Fear.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

@A_Guy, your friend got upset at one woman requiring.... $15? 30K$ of taxpayer funds to prevent malnourishment and improve the outlook for three future taxpayers (if they can escape the revolving door of the lowest class). 

Certainly you get pissed off at them when in line at the grocery store... but you ignored the thrust of my earlier post. 

The uber wealthy magnate who has relied on decades of privilege and tax avoidance, crony capitalism and raping the common man has and is draining hundreds of thousands to millions from public and private coffers yearly is invisible on Main Street. He shops at boutiques and in lawyers’ offices. There is much more to be gained going after these grifters than the paltry sum consumed by one individual of lower class needs.

Just this week we were reminded with Wilbur Ross’ malfeassnce, stealing $120 millions from partners and associates on his way to the president’s administration.  Manafort isn’t the only one with millions stashed overseas to avoid paying their fair share. These folks were not pursued with enthusiasm by society, although the scale of their crimes dwarfs the common burglar or dope fiend.

But you never see or meet them in the grocery store, so you reserve your ire for the woman you can see who probably can’t afford the $400 surprise bill around the corner. Upset her financial apple cart, and four people are living out of a Kia. 

But sure, blame your worldly woes on her rather than the bank execs who foreclosed on a substantial portion of our population a few years back. Yep, they all signed the documents, but the system trapped them, took their money and failed to protect them because they were poor, badly educated and vulnerable. Yet again the rich got richer, and the poor to homeless. 

Thats “Conservativism” in America as it is currently practiced. Ignore the enormous waste and theft by the rich and prey on the weak & vulnerable. It is a national security threat, IMO.

jesus h christ can you take something and spin it.  I'm trying to explain the very real reasons that someone is feeling angry - and you conflate that to me ignoring everything else, and blaming my friend's condition on her.  I said we both thought it stunk that the irresponsible twat was provided an easier path than my friend who's scrimped and saved and busted his ass and is STILL doing that at 53 years old.  That's not blaming her for anything - it's pointing out that something's outta whack.  

Your points have already been accepted - how many times do you need someone to do that before YOU get it?  Do you think that accepting those points negates the others?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Starving the kids doesn't address the problem, it perpetuates it.

See that the kids are fed, clothed, and educated, so they have the opportunity of breaking the cycle of poverty they were cast into. 

Exactly what I've said - but, breaking the cycle requires a willingness on their part as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

...    ...    ...

We'll have to carry the deadweight - not doing so isn't an option,  but, if we can reduce the amount of deadweight we carry?  That's a win, isn't it? 

Are you going under the assumption that "deadweight" includes people who have jobs or HAD jobs, lost them thru no fault of their own (say for example, Mitch Romney buying the company and selling it overseas), and now need to find a way to feed tehir families while they retrain?

Something tells me that you might not include coal miners whose jobs will NEVER come back, refusing to retrain for other work, as "deadweight."

30 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

......    ...    ...    ...

But sure, blame your worldly woes on her rather than the bank execs who foreclosed on a substantial portion of our population a few years back. Yep, they all signed the documents, but the system trapped them, took their money and failed to protect them because they were poor, badly educated and vulnerable. Yet again the rich got richer, and the poor to homeless. 

Thats “Conservativism” in America as it is currently practiced. Ignore the enormous waste and theft by the rich and prey on the weak & vulnerable. It is a national security threat, IMO.

There was also a lot of fraud practiced in banks foreclosing on houses they had not mortgaged in the first place, or loan originators who fraudulently got 2nd mortgages on properties the owner did not agree to, etc etc.

The whole "blame the victim" game plays out marvelously talking about the foreclosure slaughter of 2009~2011. There was a hell of a lot more predatory banking and outright fraud than there were greedy poor people signing up to buy houses they couldn't afford. But that's the narrative "the right" likes to play loud.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Starving the kids doesn't address the problem, it perpetuates it.

See that the kids are fed, clothed, and educated, so they have the opportunity of breaking the cycle of poverty they were cast into. 

No, no, no. The children must be starved as punishment for their parents being lazy, shiftless, and having made the conscious choice to remain in abject poverty. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of it is that people see what they want to see, or at least they remember the things that seem to piss them off, and forget about other circumstances.

We all know "somebody" that has seen food stamp fraud.  And right or wrong, when they think of food stamps, they think of that person.  Not the countless others that as Steam mentioned, or as people *I* actually know, have used them, with nice cars, because their husband ditched them and it took 8 months to track them down and get help with child support.  A temporary relief for a temporary problem.

I have relatives that assume, because they saw a photo on Facebook of Mexican kids protesting in a California school, that "they" are all that way.  Lazy and demanding.

These relatives also drive daily, in air-conditioned cars, past Oxnard fields where "they" work long-ass hours in blistering heat for very little money.

I think it was Mike W that once mentioned that some people will not give money to a charity because of the possibility that only 90% went to the people in need, while others will STILL give knowing that only 10% went to the people in need.  Or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

No, no, no. The children must be starved as punishment for their parents being lazy, shiftless, and having made the conscious choice to remain in abject poverty. 

 

I believe it was Jesus who taught that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

The whole "blame the victim" game plays out marvelously talking about the foreclosure slaughter of 2009~2011. There was a hell of a lot more predatory banking and outright fraud than there were greedy poor people signing up to buy houses they couldn't afford. But that's the narrative "the right" likes to play loud.

-DSK

All promoted by Barney Frank and Co. and backed by the GSE's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:
52 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

The whole "blame the victim" game plays out marvelously talking about the foreclosure slaughter of 2009~2011. There was a hell of a lot more predatory banking and outright fraud than there were greedy poor people signing up to buy houses they couldn't afford. But that's the narrative "the right" likes to play loud.

-DSK

All promoted by Barney Frank and Co. and backed by the GSE's.

?

Dodd-Frank was a response to DEregulation of banking by Republicans..... it was watered down so it would pass, not a replacement of Glass-Steagall.

The fact that it was not perfect should be well known to anybody who actually follows such things. If all you know about is hate-spew taking point, then sure, you can blame gay Congress for not protecting you enough from your own chosen predators.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So do I - and I wasn't referring to "steak and lobster" -  I was talking about a comparison between a local builder friend who I was in line with at the grocery store when one of our local white-trash 3 babies before 21 single moms w/3 boyfriends (she's a former student of my wife's - we have witnessed her behavior since she was in middle school)  came by w/a cart full of stuff that my friend couldn't afford because he'd just bought books for his daughter (3rd kid) to start her last year of college.  He's driving a 30 yr old ford truck w/390K miles on it, and she put the groceries (while screaming at the one kid old enough to walk by himself to STFU because she was on the phone) into the back of her new(ish) Kia Sorento.  Not a fancy car, but, the point is, that she's living on public assistance, and he's trying to crawl out of the mess left by the burst of the housing bubble, and because he grosses too much, and is self-employed, can't qualilfy for ANY help.   He's raised 3 successful kids, his daughter graduated from VT last year and is working in the finance office for one of the well known colleges in DC.  His oldest son has an engineering degree and is working as a civil engineer in Atlanta, and his younger son is starting out at the bottom with a local manufacturer. 

SO - Even though he's broke - he's a helluva lot more successful, has given and will continue to give more to society than the aforementioned twat, yet the twat gets the help.   Are you going to tell me that either of us are wrong for feeling that there's something outta whack here? 

I've no idea, but I doubt she's getting the money for the car from assistance. Mom, dad, sugar-daddy, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The replacement for Glass Steagall was Gramm Leach Bliley. It was written and sponsored by Republicans and passed by Republicans. It was signed by Clinton. At the time John Dingell said that it would cause banks to become too big to fail.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c41620/clip-house-session

After that scenario played out there was no meaningful reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mike G said:

A lot of it is that people see what they want to see, or at least they remember the things that seem to piss them off, and forget about other circumstances.

We all know "somebody" that has seen food stamp fraud.  And right or wrong, when they think of food stamps, they think of that person.  Not the countless others that as Steam mentioned, or as people *I* actually know, have used them, with nice cars, because their husband ditched them and it took 8 months to track them down and get help with child support.  A temporary relief for a temporary problem.

I have relatives that assume, because they saw a photo on Facebook of Mexican kids protesting in a California school, that "they" are all that way.  Lazy and demanding.

These relatives also drive daily, in air-conditioned cars, past Oxnard fields where "they" work long-ass hours in blistering heat for very little money.

I think it was Mike W that once mentioned that some people will not give money to a charity because of the possibility that only 90% went to the people in need, while others will STILL give knowing that only 10% went to the people in need.  Or something like that.

Yeah, thinking back on it, we were on SNAP for awhile post parent split. And we still had the house, and the folks each had a car that ran. I guess we were frauds and should have been homeless before we got any assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The replacement for Glass Steagall was Gramm Leach Bliley. It was written and sponsored by Republicans and passed by Republicans. It was signed by Clinton. At the time John Dingell that it would cause banks to become too big to fail.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c41620/clip-house-session

After that scenario played out there was no meaningful reform.

IIRC the Gramm bill was more aimed at the SEC more than banks, and chopped a lot of "intrusive gov't regulations" out of the way, like telling the truth in financial statements made to investors. Dodd-Frank came after the crash, it's main public face was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

I'd be willing to bet that this level of detail is very boring to those who are sure it's all some gay Democrats fault.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

IIRC the Gramm bill was more aimed at the SEC more than banks, and chopped a lot of "intrusive gov't regulations" out of the way, like telling the truth in financial statements made to investors. Dodd-Frank came after the crash, it's main public face was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

I'd be willing to bet that this level of detail is very boring to those who are sure it's all some gay Democrats fault.

-DSK

It allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate which is the exact opposite of Glass Steagall. That consolidation was the first cause of too big to fail. It was solving a problem that wasn't there and creating a problem we can't get rid of. Dog will be along to blame it on Clinton while still not being against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

?

Dodd-Frank was a response to DEregulation of banking by Republicans..... it was watered down so it would pass, not a replacement of Glass-Steagall.

The fact that it was not perfect should be well known to anybody who actually follows such things. If all you know about is hate-spew taking point, then sure, you can blame gay Congress for not protecting you enough from your own chosen predators.

-DSK

Educate yourself if you dare.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billy backstay said:

"Fair-minded "people with minds" did not vote for Trump.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Really?

From your cite: "By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. ...   ...  This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis."

Well, so much to unpack here, but let me take a stab at it: 1- In 2008, Lehman Brothers failed for $250 billion....... this is before the "crisis" in Fannie & Freddie claimed by the author to be responsible.

2nd, how does the gov't create demand? I thought the gov't could only suppress economic activity? If these mortgages were risky, why did bankers take them? Shouldn't capitalists understand risk/reward ratios? The author gets this exactly backwards....... if gov't spending created demand, then ObamaCare must have made everyone sick, right?

No, from the point that the author blames Clinton because he signed -a- bill which was partly behind the expansion of the subprime market (written by Republicans BTW), to the pint where he fudges the math and says a mortgage problem involving about 10% of the assets of ONE of the major investment bank failures, which also happened before the subprime meltdown anyway...... it's an attempt to slime the victims.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites