I'm going to use an age old argument (not necessarily because I FULLY agree with it, but because I want to see how you respond).

A 2 person household working full time (2,080 hours per year), at $12/hour is making $49,920 per year. So are you suggesting this is indicative of a broken economy? Because if 2 earners, at the bare minimum wage, could earn more than the average income in the majority of countries (even developed ones), I'd argue we are FAR from a broken economy, but rather a VERY wealthy economy.

I live in a metropolitan area, and while it isn't California expensive, it is very possible to not only survive, but do perfectly fine on a $50k annual income. My best friend lives on less...and will soon be having a third kid, and does perfectly fine. Has a nice house, saves for retirement, is able to pay for medical issues as they come up, etc.

I think that's mostly true for most of his voting base. Which is a substantial part of the US population, after all.

Are those 49k before or after taxes? And if they are before tax, how much of it would be roughly what that household really have to spend in a year?

As an European, it's always hard for me to evaluate how well an American wage actually is since we have things like full healthcare and retirement fund plan included, but that's not necessarily true in the US. In my opinion a lower-paying wage with full benefits beats a better paying one without those.

Who's head? Your so called 'parody' isn't an apples to apples comparison.

You're making a claim and then expecting people to prove you wrong. You think someone should simply be able to say they think they saw you rape someone and now you have to prove you didn't, beyond reasonable doubt, or go to jail?

KLA was responding to the initial claim, and the individual making the claim, or the others backing it up, weren't putting up sufficient evidence with direct ties to prove their claim. KLA's evidence wasn't exactly sufficient either, but they were giving the benefit of the doubt, as well as agreeing the claim could possibly be the truth, yet the others weren't doing so, until later on somewhat, once it was pointed out they weren't being consistent, in which they seemed to think consistency was so important.

When both sides have insufficient evidence to prove their point, your verdict is guilty? This very likely means you go to jail btw.

As with the original claim, you haven't proven your's either. Is that what you're really trying to point out? 

"According to a person who was in the room, Trump told donors at a recent private event that though “a lot of people think it’ll be easy to beat [in 2020],” the “truth is, it might not be so easy.” The president, according to the source, said that “you can have someone who loves Trump, but many people love free stuff, too.” He added that if candidates tell Americans, especially young voters—that they’re going to cancel their debt, “that’s a tough one” to run against."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-2020-president-privately-tells-confidants-that-socialism-wont-be-so-easy-to-beat
If he moves away from the socialism attacks i wonder what kind of attacks his campaign will come up for hard left Democratic candidates.

Well we can start with one of the images on the CNN page itself:

The article states: "There was a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast, from two days earlier, that had found a tiny portion of southeastern Alabama might be affected by Dorian. (The "cone of uncertainty" extended a few miles into the state.)"

However, if we read the top of the forecast, it states "Hazardous conditions can occur outside of the cone." That means Alabama was still very much at risk of feeling some of the hurricane.

The way the article reads, I have to wonder if the writer was aware of the text atop the forecast.

Before Taxes...

Social Security/Medicare: Approximately $3.8k

Federal Income Taxes: Approximately $2.7k

State Taxes: Widely vary, but I'll use my own state (MN): Approximately $1.4k

Total Approximate Take Home Pay: $42.1k

Sales Tax in state are about 7.25% just for comparison purposes for most non-essential goods.

I also say "Approximate" for all of the above as this is virtually the maximum you will pay. There are many additional things, like children, retirement savings, property tax refunds (in MN) etc that could vastly reduce your taxes. My friend I referred to above is negative (actually gets money back) for both the federal and state category above.

Also excluding items offered by our state such as substantially subsidized health insurance for families making that much, child care assistance offered by federal government, etc.

The number was purely just take home pay, worst case kind of thing.

Man, I had a whole long post detailed about how absurd your numbers are, but VgChartz ate it up on my phone.

Long story short, the average person is absolutely terrible with their money, and paying them more won't fix the situations you indicated. As people who are bad with money make more, they just tend to make more stupid money decisions.

With my long post, I had removed approximately $1,000 of your expenses that are absurd. minimum wage people don't need 2 $15-20k cars, the insurance rates seem absurd compared to what I've ever paid even for brand new vehicles.

Cc payments and student loan payments shouldn't be applicable to the situation we are referring to (as minimum wage jobs do not generally require college degrees, and CC spending indicates you've busted your budget). You should also however add about $100/mo for other clothing/misc expenses.

All of this being said, I do wholeheartedly believe the federal rate of $7.25 is absurdly low. I also think $15/hr is too high (for a minimum wage). In MN, the minimum is $9.65, but it is rather difficult in the metro to find a non tipping job for less than $12-13/hr.

They should then just tie the minimum to inflation so it stops being such an issue.

All of the information I have been pointing to was using the information available at the time Trump made his comments. Again, Trump was wrong and people knew he was wrong as soon as he made his comments, but he repeatedly doubled (and tripled (and quadrupled)) down on his wrong-ness.

Trump misrepresented the data at the time. He should own up to that mistake and people should stop relentlessly defending him when he was so nakedly wrong.

"he repeatedly doubled (and tripled (and quadrupled)) down on his wrong-ness"

>I don't recall you ever pointing these out to me. Refresh my memory please.

Alright buddy, you had your piece but it ain't that serious and never was.