|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 2, 2018 15:58:46 GMT -7
Just sent this to my rotorhead buddies. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 26, 2018 7:12:06 GMT -7
Glad you answered that. I thought my memory was going.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 25, 2018 20:48:45 GMT -7
Fair enough. When I say it takes two, I don't mention it being mandatory. That can be two workers for more money or whatever. But if a household believes it takes two, it takes two. And that leaves children as I have said. The article I posted about generations was posted in 2017. The graphic shows that in 2018 the baby boomers are no longer the top generation. Google can show you all kinds of links to back what I say. I talked about capitalism being an experiment. That would be bad working on my part. The point I was trying to make is that inflation was nowhere near as high as it is today back in the day. And that link I posted shows that. I will simply chalk this up as a failure to communicate and no,you are not fully to blame. But I think it's simply enough. You and I can go on about this for days and weeks and probably months and the outcome would not turn out that well. So better to just leave it. We agree on the children part, but didn’t you claim you wife worked in a daycare? If so, isn’t this making her an enabler?
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 25, 2018 19:55:50 GMT -7
Actually I’m trying to get you to write truthful statements.
The incident you mentioned was cleared by your boss 3 hours after the warning for lack of credibility. I was restored to full membership with no infractions.
Yes, I called you an idiot for the asinine statement you made. Guess blowhard doesn’t count.
It is to others to decide if the links you posted are on point or not along with the credibility of your statements, but it is to the rest of us to challenge your faulty claims.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 25, 2018 19:35:05 GMT -7
osha, change a word or two and you are basically suggesting exactly what us right wingers have been defending. Lowering a company's tax rate allows more money for wage increases. That directly affects reliance on government. If I give you a dollar, you get a dollar. If I have that dollar taken by government and forwarded to you..you would be lucky to get a quarter. What you’re advocating has parts of Reaganomics. “The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.“ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReaganomicsIt worked great except Reagan didn’t shut down the wild spending spree that almost tripled our national debt. Trump has implemented some of these. The national debt increase his first year in office is the lowest in 5 years (maybe more, but I stopped calculating). Hopefully a year from now there may be a decrease in the debt. I saw the effects of the lowered tax rates in my military retirement deposit on 2/1. I also know the extra money coming in 2/28 from my university deposit.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 25, 2018 18:49:35 GMT -7
Please read any links I posted if you visit this thread and see the blowhard above loving to hear himself talk. Ok, you're a self professed blowhard loving to hear yourself talk (more likely - see what you wrote). But it still doesn't make your links agree with your claims. Show one, any one that comes close to backing you up. I showed where you failed to comprehend your links and that they showed you're wrong. Posts like yours are the reason there are few people visiting this forum.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 25, 2018 8:20:58 GMT -7
Wow, besides using sources that don’t back up you statements you’ve also proved you don’t comprehend them, much less what you wrote initially. Again, your statement that I cited repeatedly: “"Of course household incomes are higher and in some places individual incomes. In the 60s one worker could support a household and today it takes 2.”
Nowhere in that article did it state that it takes two. That more couples work doesn’t imply it takes two either. This has been pointed out to you several times already.
Yet you desperately cling to the hope that your resource backs you up.
Now you throw in the part about the delinquent kids but fail to notice that was never brought up by me or even the article.
Hint, if your point is to draw a relationship between the duo workers and kid delinquency, keep to the subject and don’t distract with silly and false statements. Worse yet, don’t hide when you get caught but admit up front you goofed.
Now to the Millennials…
“The largest voting group in the USA does not support your tired old ideas. Oh wow, change is in the air... Oh how the times they change.”
Your statement contained no “if” but was written in present tense. My source pointed out that not only are they not the largest voting group (Boomers are slightly more numerous), Millennials remain far from the largest generational bloc of actual voters. Again from the article: “It is one thing to be eligible to vote and another entirely to cast a ballot.”
Did you read or even comprehend the article you cited? The title should have given you a clue: “Millennials to pass baby boomers as largest voter-eligible age group, and what it means.”
Do you understand the difference between present and future tense?
Now if you wanted to make the case that change is coming, leave out the silly notion that the Millennials already are the largest voting block. That change happens is nothing new.
I’ll leave the discussion to others as to whether the monolithic Millennials can overturn the combined mass of the voting population before they mature with age.
Now to inflation. This one is very easy.
You wrote: “Inflation was nowhere as high as it is today.”
Here is your defense “You are showing inflation rates. How much inflation goes up over time contributes to a whole. There is no way in hell that inflation was anywhere near as high as it it today in 1776.”
Nowhere in your original claim did you state anything about the additive effects of time or even mention a comparison with 1776. Moot points both as you wrote "nowhere as it is today". I pointed out 4 times where inflation was greater. There are many more but only one would have been sufficient to destroy your claim.
BTW, the reference to Karl Marx was to show capitalism predated the Constitution by 200 years. It had nothing to do with inflation.
Work on your comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 24, 2018 20:48:02 GMT -7
I still care about people and that's a hoot to you. Oh well, I choose thinking and caring to try and solve problems and don't submit to old ideas that have brought us here. "I happen to care about the poor and elderly and disabled, so imagined in your boxed, small mind." Whether you care about the poor, elderly and disabled is upon your own conscience, but your statement is still a hoot.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 24, 2018 20:40:32 GMT -7
The fact that capitalism predates anything is a moot point. Inflation was nowhere as high as it is today. You’re the one that made this false claim. "But wouldn't we say that capitalism was a sort of experiment back at the time of the writing?" And speaking of inflation, you should have done a little research before you wrote “Inflation was nowhere as high as it is today.” www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/2017 had a 2.1% increase as did January 2018. Nowhere as “high” as the 11.3%, 13.50% and 10.3% of the Carter years? How about the 3.2% under Obama?
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 24, 2018 20:17:30 GMT -7
People in prisons will eat better then the people on the outsides. Trump wants to cut costs, do you think that means give the working poor more food? It definitly doesn't say. "Trump wants to starve kids and families of the poor..." Keep trying.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 24, 2018 20:14:50 GMT -7
You might want to consider making it a habit of actually reading what you reference before you use it as proof of your statement. "Back before the 80s a person could work an average job and support a household. Much better earlier of course but it was possible. Now if takes two..." The title of your reference is “America Has Become a Nation of Dual-Income Working Couples”, not “it takes two.” Had you read the article you would have stumbled upon this gem: “Today, that number has risen to 66 percent, more than twice the number of sole-earner married couples. This means that a large share of married couple tax returns have two incomes and thus are now clustered in the upper income groups facing the highest marginal tax rates.” 66% is a far cry from your statement that it takes two. 34% are sole breadwinners as am I! And of those 66%, how many have to have the dual income? If both make the median income, their household income of $120,000 is in the upper 10% in the nation. Not only does your reference not back you up, it proves you wrong as I did. Nice going there, Einstein. Looks like you may have smarted up a bit on this one and not post a reference. “The largest voting group in the USA does not support your tired old ideas. Oh wow, change is in the air... Oh how the times they change.” According to this April 2016 article the Boomers still had a 0.5% lead. Given that the article is 2 years old, the stats have narrowed, but not that much. But the question posed is “will they vote?” www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/16/millennials-match-baby-boomers-as-largest-generation-in-u-s-electorate-but-will-they-vote/Also from the article: “While the growth in the number of Millennials who are eligible to vote underscores the potential electoral clout of today’s young adults, Millennials remain far from the largest generational bloc of actual voters. It is one thing to be eligible to vote and another entirely to cast a ballot.” Ouch even!
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 24, 2018 19:16:43 GMT -7
Retailers will still sell food. What do you think is going into those boxes? And finally, the article doesn't support your claim. "Trump wants to starve kids and families of the poor..." 2/23 pm You're still an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 24, 2018 8:59:49 GMT -7
Yeah sure. It's bragging when you make some stupid claim only for me to destroy it.
Claim: "Back before the 80s a person could work an average job and support a household. Much better earlier of course but it was possible. Now if takes two..." Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20am My personal example refuted this.
Claim: "Okay, so you went through college when it was much cheaper " Feb 20, 2018 at 2:54pm Like hell. Top cook wage at $1.55 means nothing is cheap.
Claim: "There is no cheap college..." Feb 20, 2018 at 2:54pm Then why do 1/3 of the nation's males have a degree as of 2016?
Claim: "...and there are no good jobs..." Feb 20, 2018 at 2:54pm Demonstrated that both the military and OSHA are constantly looking for new graduates. Mentioned the job boards too.
Claim: " (Boomers) graduated college on the cheap and got to choose from anything they wanted while kids today are shoehorned into higher prices and only have a few careers actually hiring. " Feb 21, 2018 at 4:34am See above
Claim: "...taxes on the working is up ..." Feb 21, 2018 at 7:54am Showed taxes actually dropped from 22.1% in 1976 to 17.1% in 2012.
Claim: "In the 60s one worker could support a household and today it takes 2 ."Feb 21, 2018 at 11:39pm See above.
Claim: "But wouldn't we say that capitalism was a sort of experiment back at the time of the writing?" 2/23 am Capitalism predates our Constitution by some 200-300 yrs.
Claim: "Was inflation robbing people back in that time? " 2/23 am Inflation has been with us since coins were minted.
Claim: "Why should people have to pack up their life and leave family in order to find a decent job?" 2/23 am Demonstrated by the multiple moves I've made. Hoofie did too. Even animals will move to improve their situation.
Claim: "You worked all you life and got your job when WW2 ended and all those military men were coming home and using their money to start an economy. Now the men of the Iraq war are home and they have no money to start anything." 2/23 am No, I didn't work all my life and got my job when WW2 ended and all those military men were coming home and using their money to start an economy. I wasn't even born yet. Besides, I am one of the men from the Iraq wars who came home and am doing great with all the money I saved.
Claim: "I happen to care about the poor and elderly and disabled, so imagined in your boxed, small mind. " 2/23 pm This is a hoot!
Claim: "Why should poverty be such a big problem in the richest nation on earth?" 2/23 am Ever been to Panama, Mexico, Romania or Bosnia? I'll show you what real povert is.
Claim: "Trump wants to starve kids and families of the poor..." 2/23 pm You're still an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 23, 2018 21:52:42 GMT -7
Well, I am glad I don't think inside your box. And imagined compassion? I happen to care about the poor and elderly and disabled, so imagined in your boxed, small mind. You show your lack of compassion by using animals as a means to back your flawed ideology. Animals don't pay rent/mortgage, animals don't buy food, animals don't need a car and a uhaul to move and insurance, animals don't have to plan for life as they act out of instinct. Why don't we talk about cause and effect? Why don't we find solutions to the problems instead of believing in cuts that create more poor and such? You're enjoying the fruits of your labor and bravo, proud of you, here, have a virtual pat on the back. But many people don't have the means to save and to even think about planning for retirement as they are to busy just trying to keep their head above water. Why don't we instead talk about wages following inflation? Or, why don't we get into the idea that if you wok, you should be able to at the very least support yourself? You right wingers and your own answers to problems are like regurgitated crap that you all seem to spew (is there a lack of compassion class somewhere?) and that crap solves no problem at all. What about the elderly and disabled in this country living on crumbs and most not even being able to buy their medications? Or, what about the children being raised in poor homes? Or, what about the cost of insurance? You talk about more wages and those wages mean nothing in the land of gains if inflation and insurance and such is eating up the cost of living. Hell, my sister and law pays more for health insurance then I pay for my mortgage. Here is some links for you so you can refute every one of them from your very tiny ideological box: Why should poverty be such a big problem in the richest nation on earth? federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html How do we tackle homelessness? www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-12-06/us-homeless-count-rises-pushed-by-crisis-on-the-west-coastGood jobs? www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-04/what-happened-to-all-the-good-jobsThis is not the years of old and all the new income is being shifted to the top. And still, we have tons of waste while people are struggling. And the answers that the right gives solves nothing. Trump wants to starve kids and families of the poor and the church vote to give tax cuts to the top (I'm sure their dunce of a God loves greed and hates the poor). Why don' we solve the problems and start with wages and inflation? We can and we should but nobody wants to talk about that. They instead rather argue back and forth about how they did well themselves. Well bravo, I'm sure a starving child is really proud of you. And military families are doing great. Can go and die for our country but can't even afford food: www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/hungry-heroes-25-percent-military-families-seek-food-aid-n180236 Again, who cares what box you claim to think outside of or even your imagined compassion, the proof is in the pudding. I'm enjoying the American dream, you're not. But be happy with the lot you chose. Animals have proven themselves far superior to you. They know how to improve themselves. Learn from them. Inflation has been with us for many a millennia. Learn to deal with it. And since we're in the richest nation on Earth, why do you wallow in poverty? You have the freedom to succeed, but also the freedom to fail. Seems you made the wrong choice. You don't have to stay there either. So, you state "Trump wants to starve kids and families of the poor..." You're an idiot. Instead of relying on NBC news, read the actual pay charts of what the military gets. BTW, your link doesn't work. From DFAS 2018 pay chart www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.htmlA basic recruit starts at $514.70/mo for the first 4 months. Sure this isn't much but what is this 18 yr old going to spend this large sum on? This equates to $18,176.40/yr. Definitely poverty level but he has no medical, dental, vision, prescriptions food, housing or clothing bills. How many civilian jobs pays for all that? Not bad for a recent HS grad with no skills. After 4 months, he's now making $1638.30/mo ($18660/y,r). He's still not rolling in the dough. But rank comes quickly for those that try. With less than 2 years he should be a PFC (E3) at $2052/mo ($24,624/yr). His base pay has edged out of the poverty level, but he still has no bills. By year 4 he should be a Sp4/corporal (E4) at $1490/mo ($29,880/yr). By year 5 (and after reenlistment with possible bonus) he should be an NCO, Sgt E5 at $2733/mo ($32,796/yr). Still not rolling in the dough, but he still has no bills. He’s 23 yrs old now. Say he gets married. He may live in government quarters (no rent or utilities) or live off post and get quarters and dependent allowance. Quarters allowance increases with rank. You can read the chart to see the gradual increase in basic pay. Using only this, our troop does suck pond water in the pay scales, but remember no other pays and allowances are mentioned. Should he deploy in a combat zone, he pays no income taxes. Officers fare better, but they must possess the quality degrees the military demands. Soldiers, like their civilian counterparts must live within their means. Those that don't face the same fate for living large. I am an 18 yr product of a military family. I also spent 24 years raising my own military family. I know a bit about this.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 23, 2018 15:56:32 GMT -7
My undies are showing?
|
|