If you look in my past, I spent a lot of time discussing things with people here on the forum. However after the constant toxic attitude I got, it was not worth it.
Even MORE "victim" posing.
Young man, you knowingly come to an overwhelmingly *conservative* forum and constantly poke your finger in the eye of folks here with your hyperbole and / or lies and then cry because you weren't warmly embraced.
You post wild claims and lies and then when your falsehoods are deconstructed you cry that "people repeatedly call the information I posted "fake" and "lies" simply because they disagreed with it..."
BULLCRAP. They call it fake and lies because the drivel that you call "information" almost never matches your hyperbolic and false statements.
They call it fake and lies because the crap you call "information" is usually *opinion* and not objective fact.
They call it fake and lies because that's what it is.
Let's make this as plain as possible for you one more time: YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOURSELF
It's been pointed out to you a number of times before you DON'T EVEN HAVE A RATINGS BAR yet.
Unlike most ANY leftist liberal forum where conservatives are booted out almost immediately, you are still here.
Stop your damn whining and for God's sake, STOP LYING.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-13-2017).]
So, uh, when did I demand retribution? When did I say I was emotionally or physically harmed? When did I lie in this thread? What leftist forums ban people immediately? I am not claiming to be a victim, I am providing an explanation for why I do not continually respond in the discourse that occurs on this forum.
And by the way, your responses are doing a fantastic job proving my point, hahaha.
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 12-14-2017).]
So, uh, when did I demand retribution? When did I say I was emotionally or physically harmed? When did I lie in this thread? What leftist forums ban people immediately? I am not claiming to be a victim, I am providing an explanation for why I do not continually respond in the discourse that occurs on this forum.
And by the way, your responses are doing a fantastic job proving my point, hahaha.
you post victimhood every post, so, well, ya, carry on..
"Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%."
Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.
This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work." Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past, but has never received any compensation. The Vermont senator asked Friedman to estimate the cost of Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan -- which came out to $13.8 trillion over 10 years -- and included the analysis when he unveiled his proposal last month.
Friedman, found that if Sanders became president -- and was able to push his plan through Congress -- median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term.
Other economists, however, feel that Friedman's analysis is overly optimistic, saying it would be difficult to achieve that level of economic prosperity. Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Sanders' plan to pay for health care would fall short by at least $3 trillion.
Sanders' plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy -- including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave -- would juice GDP and productivity. (Friedman reduces the cost of Medicare-for-all to $10.7 trillion because he estimates the government would save $3.1 trillion by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums.)
Also, Sanders would raise the minimum wage, as well as shift income from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.
"Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders' program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity," Friedman writes. It will "promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality."
Many presidential hopefuls say their economic programs would boost growth. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush justify their big tax cuts by saying GDP would grow at a 4% rate. But their plans have been panned by experts as overly optimistic.
Friedman, however, argues that Sanders' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes. Several of Sanders' proposals -- such as spending $1 trillion on infrastructure -- will happen in the first few years of his administration.
The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.
"If there is more spending, people will have more to do," Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate.
Sanders' policy director, Warren Gunnels, also defended the estimates, noting the candidate is thinking big. "We haven't had such an ambitious agenda to rebuild the middle class since Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson," he said.
Still, some experts question whether the effects would be that large.
Stimulating demand can boost a weak economy during a recession, but "it's harder to accept as a long-run growth strategy," said William Gale, the former director of Brookings' Economic Studies Program.
Also, it would be very difficult to achieve and maintain an economic growth rate of 5.3% per year after inflation. That target hasn't been hit consistently since the 1960s, when technology was providing big advancements, the workforce was younger and there was increased demand for American products worldwide as other countries fully recovered from World War II.
"The 5.3% number is a fantasy," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.
From what I could see, it's plainly attributed to CNN as the source Tony. I didn't see anywhere that he claimed it to be his own original thoughts, even if he agrees with the premise or gist of the article or not. And, 2.5 countered with a different CNN article, as well as Time and Free Beacon excepts, and no one accused him of plagiarism.
Yet with trump more are working, the unemployment is at 4.1% the lowest in 13 years but burnie would've done better, socializing everything.. It never works, but somehow some thing it will this time
Yet with trump more are working, the unemployment is at 4.1% the lowest in 13 years but burnie would've done better, socializing everything.. It never works, but somehow some thing it will this time
And ya tony it clearly says CNN..
Between 2010 and 2016, Obama took the unemployment rate from 9.8% to 4.7%. That is 1.17% per year.
Trump has had a single year, and only dropped it by .7% from 4.8%-4.1% Source
So either by this metric Obama is better than Trump, or these stats are meaningless because the president has almost nothing to do with it(I am leaning towards the latter).
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 12-14-2017).]
Between 2010 and 2016, Obama took the unemployment rate from 9.8% to 4.7%. That is 1.17% per year.
Trump has had a single year, and only dropped it by .7% from 4.8%-4.1% Source
So either by this metric Obama is better than Trump, or these stats are meaningless because the president has almost nothing to do with it(I am leaning towards the latter).
The difference is Obama years those unemployed ran out of unemployment bennies and when that happens you are not counted as unemployed per that number, Obama years no job growth, to match the unemployment rate, they turned up on the welfare rolls, Today the job growth mirrors the drop in unemployment % and less on the welfare rolls.. I know inputing all the numbers in to an honest formula sucks, but.. now go find and post the welfare numbers from 2010-2016 .. as the unemployment # went down the welfare rool# went up, that doesn't = people working..
The difference is Obama years those unemployed ran out of unemployment bennies and when that happens you are not counted as unemployed per that number, Obama years no job growth, to match the unemployment rate, they turned up on the welfare rolls, Today the job growth mirrors the drop in unemployment % and less on the welfare rolls.. I know inputing all the numbers in to an honest formula sucks, but.. now go find and post the welfare numbers from 2010-2016 .. as the unemployment # went down the welfare rool# went up, that doesn't = people working..
Could you find any sources or evidence to back up what you are saying?
Looking for a good graph, I could only find this one, but it seems to match the information elsewhere:
As you can see welfare went up with the recession, as his presidency continued the numbers slowly declined.
Additionally, a lot of evidence(not very many graphs are available as its early) is showing that under Trump the number of people on welfare is increasing.
Again, I am a firm believer that these stats are meaningless.
Yes Obumas unemployment rates dropped...and like said, was mostly due to the people that run out of unemployment benefits and those that simply stopped looking for jobs. None of those people are included in unemployment stats. Not everyone that ran out of unemployment went on welfare. A lot changed living styles, lived off savings, or cashed in retirement/ IRA plans...at least partially. Ive been retired/ unemployed for the most part since 2008. I never tried to collect unemployment so im not included, as a lot of people I know did the same. Im living off my SS and my own savings, and very little actual work. My total income from the jobs I did do and the SS payments would legally qualify me for all kinds of welfare programs from heating bills to food stamps. Instead of that Im using my own money I saved.
Yes Obumas unemployment rates dropped...and like said, was mostly due to the people that run out of unemployment benefits and those that simply stopped looking for jobs. None of those people are included in unemployment stats. Not everyone that ran out of unemployment went on welfare. A lot changed living styles, lived off savings, or cashed in retirement/ IRA plans...at least partially. Ive been retired/ unemployed for the most part since 2008. I never tried to collect unemployment so im not included, as a lot of people I know did the same. Im living off my SS and my own savings, and very little actual work. My total income from the jobs I did do and the SS payments would legally qualify me for all kinds of welfare programs from heating bills to food stamps. Instead of that Im using my own money I saved.
So either by this metric Obama is better than Trump, or these stats are meaningless because the president has almost nothing to do with it(I am leaning towards the latter).
Its weird to me that we ended up talking about this here.
Well this explains why my cat pays no attention when trying to help her, runs around at times like a chicken with it's head cut off and is too stupid to come in when it's cold outside. Putting all it's crap in the same box and trying to hide it seems familiar too.
[This message has been edited by Lambo nut (edited 12-14-2017).]
I understand that his linkie went to CNN. He was asked about posting, and his entire rebuttal is a copy and paste. Not really his own thing, but a diversion. Just meaningless drivel added to more meaningless drivel.
I guess somewhere in there I am mistaken, but if it were a grenade, or a very small fire cracker, I would have hit my mark.
This Forum is being degraded to below cesspool quality.
I wrote the following, in a PM to another member several months ago:
quote
In general, the forum has lost much of it's luster over the last couple of years. I am unabashedly conservative, but a few have gravitated so far out on the angry right fringe that they now eat their own. I have stated opinions only to have someone argue with what they imagine I said rather than listening to what I really said. I am tired of explaining myself to someone with whom I agree, at least in principle. I make statements with the understanding that those who read them should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the topic at hand. I am not responsible for anyone's education, or lack thereof.
In addition, there are a few children who somehow found their way on to the board, who just post random imaginary crap. How does one discuss such things?
I posted this in another thread, yesterday:
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Yeah, it seems obvious, based on this tread alone, that E.Fungal is trying to bring this forum to a grinding halt.
At least he will be able to claim success at one endeavor.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-16-2017).]
