|
Post by osha on Feb 24, 2018 21:52:55 GMT -7
Showing that more families are dual earners (hence, 2 parents working) proves my point. I said: "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. Then we wonder why children who are not raised by parents shoot up schools left and right." That article does not refute what I have said at all. That article states that households now have more dual workers, I said even incomes are higher. I said we wonder why kids shoot up schools. More dual workers means more kids left alone or in daycare which translates to less parental influence. I was right. "If" millennials vote, your ideas are in trouble. www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/brownstein-millennials-largest-voter-group-baby-boomers/index.htmlNow of course, seniors and Christians are the largest voting block. We will see but as time goes on these millennials have children and those children see parental ideas... Future will be interesting. modernfarmer.com/2017/07/trump-snap-benefit-cuts/Less always means less. We can't spend less and get more (except for maybe a beater vehicle). 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. www.businessinsider.com/chart-inflation-since-1775-2013-1Nowhere near. So we could say experiment or we could reword that. I have read some Karl Marx stuff and much is earlier, but it's still the point, look at the graph. I don't really see any place at all where you are correcting me. Not even a little bit.
|
|
|
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 hoofie on Feb 25, 2018 11:55:08 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 25, 2018 13:36:42 GMT -7
Please read any links I posted if you visit this thread and see the blowhard above loving to hear himself talk.
Cause (takes history) and effect (current result) is self explanatory to me. If it is not perhaps you should step back and do some self evaluation. People like him are the reason there are like 4 people visiting these forums.
Hoofie, I don't blame the rich as much as I blame wages. If I was POTUS, I would offer tax breaks to companies that pay workers higher. Reason would be that if we up minimum wage we raise the prices of everything else. Companies and investors hate the idea of paying more. But offer companies incentives in the form of a tax break (more profit) and that would be good for the company and the investors.
Result would be less reliance on government programs. Instead of attacking the issue of the working poor with a sword and slashing everything, go to the cause and find a solution.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Feb 25, 2018 15:01:43 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.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 25, 2018 18:41:36 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. I agree. I am a centrist and love my guns. I would do things a bit different then the right may agree with. I would up the tax on the rich high (like %50) and use the wage incentives to entice enough to make companies/rich want to up wages for the cut that they would cut the taxes down to current levels and maybe even below. As POTUS, I would see the benefit. Workers making more money means more tax revenue from these workers. It would also mean more people joining the job market and that would increase tax revenue. The cuts would be fine as the benefits would outweigh anything else. I would actually do the same type of things for other programs to lowers costs. Incentives for insurance companies who make medications and treatments more accessible and such. I really believe something like that could work. Not to even mention the huge cuts in food stamps this would make possible and the lowering of healthcare and such which saves the government more money.
|
|
|
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 osha on Feb 25, 2018 19:06:39 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. Ok, this ends now. You are trolling and trying to get a response. You have had problems on this forum before have you not? I have been very nice to you as you have called me an idiot. We will allow the readers to decide if the links I posted are on point or not. You are not the judge and jury or the post control on these forums. Just knock it off and move on.
|
|
|
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 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 osha on Feb 25, 2018 20:10:43 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.
|
|
|
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 osha on Feb 26, 2018 1:33:10 GMT -7
I feel she is providing a service the public feels it needs. There are many things I don't agree with when it comes to the public but they create a demand and people need to fill that demand.
Besides, my wife is a good person and the kids love her. If a child has to go to a daycare, I'm glad it is my wife providing that service.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Feb 26, 2018 7:12:06 GMT -7
Glad you answered that. I thought my memory was going.
|
|