(June 24, 2017 at 8:50 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: [quote='Court Jester' pid='1573770' dateline='1498275249']
[quote pid='1573706' dateline='1498262248']


You seem to have confused the term liberal with "narrow minded blow hard idiot"

No. I didn't confuse it. I'm just adult enough that I've grown out of calling people names when they don't agree with my views.

(June 24, 2017 at 7:36 am)Brian37 Wrote: [quote='Court Jester' pid='1573770' dateline='1498275249']

We do look at facts idiot, you ignore them.

1. We did trickle down since Reagan, IT DOESNT FUCKING WORK.

2. The pay gap has exploded in that time and just like a rubber band, you keep stretching it it will snap.

3. Worker pay IS NOT keeping up with the cost of living.

4. Higher taxes on the rich WILL NOT HURT THEM.

5. Cheaper and or free higher education BENEFITS SOCIETY.

None of that list above is a call for a Stalin nanny state or Castro's Cuba, and I am fucking sick of that bullshit cold war crap. High taxes and investment was the policy after WW2 and that policy of livable wages and education and investment and high taxes on the rich CREATED THE MIDDLE CLASS after WW2! And the worst part is you are too stupid to see, that by doing those things that made workers LESS DEPENDENT on government.

Well the name calling and thin skin identifies your maturity and/or level of education. But you’re not looking at the true facts and the big picture certainly isn’t being taken into account.

1. Trickle-down economics does work. Example; I do own my own my own manufacturing business and I sell globally. I made an investment of just under $2mil to my plant in building on an adding machinery. From a capacity stand point, I needed to hire 12 more people. For me to receive the tax abatement, I had to hire 16 more people. I get that for the next nine years, the city auditor’s office visits me each year, paperwork for that abatement has to be completed and sent in by May 15th of each year, and any head count decreases must be justified with proof of either new equipment or substantiated capacity/income reductions.
So I’m getting zero reductions in my personal income but I am creating more income within the community and my company pays less because of that. The average hourly wage for my county is $14.00 hr. Very rural mid-west community, home prices are stupid cheap, etc. My starting hourly wage is $18.00 hr. After the different insurances, 401k, etc, it comes out to about $39 per hour paid out per employee.
Had it not been for trickle-down economics, I likely would not have taken the chance to add onto my facility, thus not hiring the folks that I have. It does work and is in place for a very good reason and a heck of a lot of people have jobs because of it.

2. The “Pay gap” is a broad brush to stroke. If you’re talking hourly worker to CEO pay gap; Well yeah. There’s going to be a gap. In some industries you have thousands of people running machines or on assembly lines and one man/woman that is responsible for 100+ plants around the world. Makes sense. Pay is based on responsibility, but the number of CEOs in the world is freaken minuscule compared to the number of hourly workers.

If it’s between male and female; I don’t get resumes for woman wanting to run or work on CNC machines. I can’t help that. I have a female engineer that makes less than a male engineer, but he has been here five years longer. Five years from now, she will be where he is today and he will still be five years ahead of her. The female answering the phone in the air-conditioned office does make less than the guy running the machine in the shop when it’s 90+ degrees outside. And the female supervisor makes more than the guy running the machines, and I make more than them. Again, pay based on responsibility. You want to make more? Learn more, do more, and/or take on more responsibility and ownership of that responsibility. And there’s your pay gap.

3. I own a business so it’s within my benefit to watch this stuff and that the cost of living argument is very subjective and based purely on geographical locations. Inflation was at 6.3ish percent in the late 1980’s. 2007 it was nearly nonexistent. Today it’s at about 1.4%. Average annual hourly worker increases are somewhere from 2%-4% dependent on the industry. I increase 3% annually.
You want to live in LA or Boston? It’s going to cost you and the market will reflect that. I have a friend in Maryland that $1,800 a month for a 1,200 sq ft apartment. I’m in the Midwest and paid $86,000 for a very nice 2,800 sq ft house with 2 acres of land. There are nice apartments here for $400-$600 a month. If someone has an apartment in Gatlinburg, Tennessee that they can rent on Airbnb for $150 a night and have it booked 50% of the month; how illogical would it be to rent it for less than $1,800 a month? No one in their right mind would rent it for much less than that unless they simply didn’t want the regular hustle of the regular changes. Find an environment that meets your expectations and don’t expect your environment to change for you. That’s how a free society works.

4. Again, I look at this stuff and people totally cherry pick on equality. “we want everything equal. Well… except this and that and that and those things over there. Oh and those people should do more and them over there, they can do less.”
A breakdown from my accountant last winter (federal tax by income bracket);
The bottom 20% of Americans pay .6% of taxes paid to the US economy.
The next 20% is at 4% of taxes paid to the US economy.
Next 20% is at 9% of taxes paid to the US economy.
Next 20% is at 18% of taxes paid to the US economy.
- 80% pay 36.6% or all taxes
The top 20% pays 63.4% of all federal taxes in the US.
AND the top 1% is responsible for 25% of that.
I think they are doing their duty just fine as is.

5. You almost got one right. .5 out of 5 is a stepping stone for improvement. You’ll get there though.
Cheaper or “affordable” higher education is unquestionably better for society. They is no “Free” education. Someone has to get paid and that cost has to be covered. Nothing is free. And until it is to be made more “affordable”, all anyone would be doing is paying higher taxes (even the lowest 80% of society) so that schools could charge even higher prices for text books and credit hours (that I would argue is already overpriced) for the same education. Hell, Ohio State spends more for their football team than they spend on all of their science departments combined. That’s just the one school that I’m familiar with. They can’t be the only one. Why make it “free” without fixing the issue with cost to begin with?
You really want to see more Deans and College Board members get into the 1% bracket? Make college free without fixing the root cause.
It’s the same reason that insurance companies are bailing on states and communities under the new health care system. It was made “free” or nearly free, without any consideration or effort made to fix the underlying issue of overall costs. Businesses are in place to make a profit. That is their one and only purpose anywhere in the world. And a blanket taxpayer based “free” coverage with no restrictions or competition of anything opens the door for financial molestation of customers.

If you think Trickle down economics works, I've got ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you--real cheap.

Either that or you're hoping to sell someone else some Ocean Front property in Nebraska. Which it sounds like.

...back to the title of the thread, I would be willing to bet that Mark Zuckerberg is going to throw his hat in the ring.
Also Joe Kennedy and Joe Biden.

I don't think Elizabeth Warren will be supported by the D party.

Booker would be my first choice at this point.

I wouldn't let Elizabeth Warren put clickers on a big wheel.

Joe Biden is about the only current democrat that I'd listen to. I don't know much about too many of the democratic folks though. Biden could be a decent consideration though.

I think Warren is brilliant, and would be a great president. I also think she'd be destroyed during the campaign.

(June 24, 2017 at 9:53 am)Court Jester Wrote:

(June 24, 2017 at 8:50 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 11:34 pm)Court Jester Wrote: [quote pid='1573706' dateline='1498262248']


You seem to have confused the term liberal with "narrow minded blow hard idiot"

No. I didn't confuse it. I'm just adult enough that I've grown out of calling people names when they don't agree with my views.

[/quote]
That's nice dear.

(June 21, 2017 at 6:35 pm)It_Was_me Wrote: So I would like to start a thread here of potential presidential candidates for 2020. I will start my list here. Now, just because I put their name down, does not mean that I would support them. Just saying that these people could be likely challengers for 2020. [Then again a Potato would be better than Trump at this point] So feel free to put your names down on this list. Republican, Democrat, Independent anything goes.

-Elizabeth Warren (Obvious choice)
-Bernie Sanders (Another obvious one)
-Gary Johnson
-Nikki Haley (She may actually be the one to unseat Trump on the GOP side)
-Angus King (I really don't think he will run, but I think he has a future just watch this https://www.facebook.com/TheHill/videos/...933184087/)
-50 Republicans (Again, I think it will be a very crowded field on the GOP side [Rudy Guliani, Ted Cruz, Rubio, Rick Perry)
-O'maley (I really liked him)
-Michael Fucking Bloomberg (He probably won't run, but he damn well should)
-Michelle Obama (I personally think she would be a good candidate for the Democratic party. However, I would not want her to run. I think she is great, but I just really don't want to see the Obama family have to endure 4-8 years of constant hate from the right like Barack had to deal with)



And just for the hell of it:
-Kyrsten Sinema (Congresswoman from AZ who is very well liked)
-Anderson Cooper (LOL)
-Kanye West (I hope to God the guy doesn't get a single vote. But he has said he wants to run. Did you know he sold a plain white t-shirt and people actually bought that?)

Gary Johnson retired from politics to smoke a whole lot of weed and ride his bike across the country. So I doubt it. Lots of other people on that list are pretty silly as well.

(June 24, 2017 at 4:51 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 21, 2017 at 6:35 pm)It_Was_me Wrote: So I would like to start a thread here of potential presidential candidates for 2020. I will start my list here. Now, just because I put their name down, does not mean that I would support them. Just saying that these people could be likely challengers for 2020. [Then again a Potato would be better than Trump at this point] So feel free to put your names down on this list. Republican, Democrat, Independent anything goes.

-Elizabeth Warren (Obvious choice)
-Bernie Sanders (Another obvious one)
-Gary Johnson
-Nikki Haley (She may actually be the one to unseat Trump on the GOP side)
-Angus King (I really don't think he will run, but I think he has a future just watch this https://www.facebook.com/TheHill/videos/...933184087/)
-50 Republicans (Again, I think it will be a very crowded field on the GOP side [Rudy Guliani, Ted Cruz, Rubio, Rick Perry)
-O'maley (I really liked him)
-Michael Fucking Bloomberg (He probably won't run, but he damn well should)
-Michelle Obama (I personally think she would be a good candidate for the Democratic party. However, I would not want her to run. I think she is great, but I just really don't want to see the Obama family have to endure 4-8 years of constant hate from the right like Barack had to deal with)



And just for the hell of it:
-Kyrsten Sinema (Congresswoman from AZ who is very well liked)
-Anderson Cooper (LOL)
-Kanye West (I hope to God the guy doesn't get a single vote. But he has said he wants to run. Did you know he sold a plain white t-shirt and people actually bought that?)

Gary Johnson retired from politics to smoke a whole lot of weed and ride his bike across the country. So I doubt it. Lots of other people on that list are pretty silly as well.

Fair enough. 

Love your signature by the way!