|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 28, 2017 5:21:09 GMT -7
www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2015Mine from older data. But this is the newest from SS earnings I can get. Still, 50% of households and my point still stands. And you include that two people should work thereby creating what I said above. Your data subjects only income subject to Federal income taxes. My son's disability income, my disability compensation and the vast majority of my pay when I was deployed in a combat zone years back isn't subject to Federal income taxes and not reported on a W-2.. 50% of the households make a goodly bit more than your dower note implies. Your $30,000 applies to less than 40% using the calculator already provided. BTW, I didn't write that two people should work. Those are your words. Now poverty doesn't cause divorce. If so, Hollywood folks, governors, physicians and lawyers would have an almost non-existant devorce rate. Our president doesn't fit this trend either.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 27, 2017 19:47:50 GMT -7
a whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year and that is gross pay. Really? According to BLS data and using this calculator, $41.4K was earned by 55% of this country for 2016. That is individual income, not household dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/Now you mentioned only what your mother brought in. That amount may have been the household income too if she was the sole wage earner. But the 54.22th percentile household in 2014 made between $60K and $65K. (US Census Bureau figures for 2014) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 17, 2017 14:11:19 GMT -7
In the article from the above link, the writer is trying to connect Trump with Mussolini, the father of fascism. Most of the characteristic points stress or imply more government or reliance on government. While extreme rightists will push patriotism and our perceived governance leadership in the world, true Conservatives, while patriotic want less government and less interference from government. Not sure of what article John Doe used but the list comes from a 2003 article and can't have anything to do with our president. Indeed, the authentincity of the author is questioned as is the list itself. This is a very long read. therightstuff.biz/2014/01/22/fascism-no-one-a-response-to-dr-laurence-britt/
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 10, 2017 13:54:13 GMT -7
Damn there hoofie, I thought being 3 weeks off having a complete shoulder joint replaced was bad. You got me beat. At lest you're not the sound of one hand typing.
Hope things get better fast!
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 7, 2017 17:03:56 GMT -7
Have you heard the joke about Johnson?I will leave it at that! Don't think so, but have at it. I didn't write this but here's one for you. The President-elect won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote but had the majority of electoral votes. The Republican Party had put forth a candidate to win several crucial states that could swing the electoral college. The election was a bitter one with the Democratic Party fractured between two candidates. The incoming President received so many death threats that he chose to arrive in Washington in secrecy. The security for the inauguration was the tightest ever with troops stationed on buildings throughout the day. This was an unprecedented amount of protection for any President-elect. Many members of Congress chose not to attend the ceremony. Despite all this Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as our 16th president on March 4, 1861.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 6, 2017 20:08:46 GMT -7
1868- Andrew Jackson,17th president of the USA,became the first president to have impeachment proceedings brought against him by the house of Representatives. That was Andrew JOHNSON, not Andrew JACKSON.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 4, 2017 17:03:52 GMT -7
Carryn Owen was a special invitee at Trump's speech to Congress to honor her husband. Khizr Kahn's speech at the DNC was not to honor his fallen son nor that of his honorable service, but to falsely attack Trump's position on immigration. Kahn made himself a target when he entered the political arena with an ax to grind - and got blasted. www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/donald-trump-khizr-kahn-response/index.html I completely agree that the venues and agendas were different. However, if Trump would have taken the high road by honoring the fallen soldier he would have been lauded. Instead, he wrongly legitimized the parents and ignored the fallen soldier. Trump didn't ligitimze the parents but started the path that exposed Khirz for the fraud he is. Trump honoring the dead wouldn't have made a difference last August. As it turned out, it doidn't make a difference where it counted in November.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 4, 2017 14:24:32 GMT -7
Carryn Owen was a special invitee at Trump's speech to Congress to honor her husband. Khizr Kahn's speech at the DNC was not to honor his fallen son nor that of his honorable service, but to falsely attack Trump's position on immigration. Kahn made himself a target when he entered the political arena with an ax to grind - and got blasted. www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/donald-trump-khizr-kahn-response/index.html
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 4, 2017 9:02:06 GMT -7
zzzzzzzz.....yawn, nothing intelligent here......zzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 2, 2017 6:57:37 GMT -7
Congratulations Mr Bit, you now sound like a second grader rather than a pre-K brat. Some day you'll be taken seriously. Oh, and it'll be interesting to see what happens to those 'military chiefs' since their commander was the one speaking. Snake is still a pre-K brat. Nothing is going to happen to those 'military chiefs' as they did exactly what tey are required to do. Stay apolitical. www.thebalance.com/military-folks-and-politics-3332818A while back the left was crying that the Joint Chiefs dissed their idol when they stayed stoney faced while Obama patted himself on the back again.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 26, 2017 15:34:38 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 3, 2017 6:45:36 GMT -7
How many innocent women and children have been killed by drone attacks in obummers admin due to bad Intel? Even with good intel the innocents suffer, but your point is well taken. BTW, I never raised my right hand and swore to obey the POTUS no matter who I voted for either.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 2, 2017 18:22:46 GMT -7
Guess you didn't either read or understand the article, much less uncle Joe's words. From the article... "But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination. Your matter of time reference also doesn't make sense. Biden said "...an election year". He didn't quibble over some fraction of it. And that "...junior Senator from Delaware..." also happened to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as I stated above. This wasn't a novice. You guys own it. Congrats. Key phrases in your quote: "a different standard", "full throes of an election year". You have given them your own meaning instead of Joe Biden's meaning. When he said "a different standard" his meaning was NOT to refuse to consider a nominee - that your meaning of it. His meaning was to "consider delaying the hearing until after the election", and he repeatedly said this was his meaning. He even said that he would support a Bush nominee if it was someone moderate like one of his previous appointments. As far as I know, there has never been any case except 2016 when the Senate refused to act on a nominee, because of an election or any other reason. Your claim "...he would have omitted the words "full throes" (just as you did..." Really? I underlined this part in my post that you quoted so you can see your claim is false. You think I added this just to show you are wrong? Check out my original quote and notice there is no edit. Read more: tnewsbackupforum.boards.net/thread/729/oh-worth?page=1#ixzz4Xa5pD5iTWhen he said "full throes of an election year", he was talking about July or later, not February when Republicans announced they would not give a hearing to any Obama nominee. If he was talking about the entire year, he would have omitted the words "full throes" (just as you did when trying to misrepresent what he said). By July, Democrats and Republicans are going after each other. In February, they are talking about their primary opponents, not the other party - that's certainly not the "full throes". Here's what the Democrats own: In 1988, an election year, a Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed a Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court by a vote of 97-0. In 1992, one Democratic Senator speculatively suggested that the Senate "should seriously consider delaying until after the election" IF a vacancy arose and IF Bush submitted a nominee. The rest of the Democratic Party said nothing about it. In 2016, when an actual vacancy arose in February, on either the same day that Scalia died or the next day, Mitch McConnell said the Senate would not act on any nominee from Obama, and virtually the entire Republican Party enthusiastically supported that position. You can dodge and squirm all you want, but we both know you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument. So, this was just one Democratic Senator speculatively suggested that the Senate "should seriously consider delaying until after the election". Hmmm, and he was also the junior senator of his state. Hmmmm! You again failed to notice that this same senator was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. This is no novice but the head of that committee - as been written several times. Your quote "As far as I know, there has never been any case except 2016 when the Senate refused to act on a nominee, because of an election or any other reason." Garland is only the latest. Had you been following my discussion with Eye on the old forum you would have learned this. Here's a list of those who nominated and what was the result. Note there are several shown with "no action". www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htmSeems you also failed to show where Biden was talking about July or later. More of your wishful thinking. "...his meaning was NOT to refuse to consider a nominee..." Really? From the article quoted above "The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination." Do you understand English? Looks like you don't. And speaking of that 1988 confirmation done in the last year (an election year) of Reagan, that was justice Anthony Kennedy. Biden didn't speak out against this as Kennedy was not named in the throes of an election year. He was confirmed in one. He was named in..............1987! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy You do know odd numbered years aren't election years, I hope. Want to try again? You can dodge and squirm all you want, but I know you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument. Thanks for letting the readers of this forum know the same. You guys own it. Congrats.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 2, 2017 6:46:17 GMT -7
And speaking of giving Democrats their rightful discretion when fate gives them a turn, the seat is already named after and will forever be known for that chairman of the Judiciary Committee who set the standard, Joe Biden. Gots to love progressives who will block common sense, flout rationality, and disdain facts every time their own self-interest is in conflict with the rule of law and the good of the people and the nation! www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.htmlJoe Biden did not as you say "set the standard". He was at the time the junior Senator from Delaware, and he expressed his opinion, but that did not make it the position of the Democratic Party, much less the "standard". Democrats did not rally around Biden's call. Biden himself, in that same speech, if you listened to the clip to the end, said he would vote to confirm a Bush nominee if it was a moderate like one of Bush's other nominees. In contrast, virtually the entire Republican Party called for blocking an Obama appointment immediately, before Scalia was even in the ground. There's also the matter of time. Biden's speech took place in the thick of the campaign, and while Republicans announced their blockade before either party's nominee was even settled, 269 days (9 months) before the election as compared to Biden's speech 131 days (4.5 months) before the election. Finally, there is the content of Biden's speech. I can't tell if you just didn't listen to it or if you're trying to mislead us about what he said. He said he thought Bush should refrain from nominating anyone during the campaign season. But if Bush did nominate someone, the Senate "SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER NOT HOLDING HEARINGS UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION". He added that if Bush nominated someone moderate like his previous appointee Souter, then he would support him/her after the election. Republicans were not talking about WAITING UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, as Biden was, they were blatantly refusing to consider any Obama nominee, with no other reason than to deny Obama another appointee. Guess you didn't either read or understand the article, much less uncle Joe's words. From the article... "But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination. Your matter of time reference also doesn't make sense. Biden said "...an election year". He didn't quibble over some fraction of it. And that "...junior Senator from Delaware..." also happened to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as I stated above. This wasn't a novice. You guys own it. Congrats.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 1, 2017 20:06:58 GMT -7
Gorsuch's seat on the Court will forever be known as the stolen seat. And speaking of giving Democrats their rightful discretion when fate gives them a turn, the seat is already named after and will forever be known for that chairman of the Judiciary Committee who set the standard, Joe Biden. Gots to love progressives who will block common sense, flout rationality, and disdain facts every time their own self-interest is in conflict with the rule of law and the good of the people and the nation! www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html
|
|