Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

KLAMarine said:
Machiavellian said:

Bruh, I gave you an article which showed it wasn't just tweets.  It was a bunch of different statements Trump made to various sources.  I guess it was convenient for you to dismiss that article since you have no intention of even understanding the situation.  Nothing is going to be good enough for you because you have not followed the whole dumb crap.  You continue to die on this issue trying to defend something that really isn't defesivable. 

For the sake of brevity, what portion of the article you linked would you like to focus on?

You can choose whichever part you see fit to argue about.  Since the article gave you a timeline on each event, feel free to throw your best effort.  Since it is you who dispute the article, I am sure you must have something you feel is not correct.



Around the Network
Jumpin said:
jason1637 said:

I feel that the minimum wage should be increased but just not to $15. Maybe like $11 or $12. Fewer hours is a plus for some people but another effect of an increase would be loss of jobs.

I agree with lower minimum wage to no minimum wage to cover friend/family business type work for secondary income earners and teenagers. But the fact that household top-earners pay as little as 11 or 12 USD per hour should be distressingly problematic. It is a symptom of a broken economy. The key part of the solution would be strengthening the worker unions. There's also the technology boom to contend with, you don't want to halt the progress of automation, but at the same time, you don't want the profits to go to capitalist owners of automation.

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.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Jumpin said:
Are some of you guys actually trying to defend the fact that Donald Trump is a pathological liar?
It is kind of sad that people believe he is an honest non-foolish man.

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

Baalzamon said:
Jumpin said:

I agree with lower minimum wage to no minimum wage to cover friend/family business type work for secondary income earners and teenagers. But the fact that household top-earners pay as little as 11 or 12 USD per hour should be distressingly problematic. It is a symptom of a broken economy. The key part of the solution would be strengthening the worker unions. There's also the technology boom to contend with, you don't want to halt the progress of automation, but at the same time, you don't want the profits to go to capitalist owners of automation.

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.

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.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 09 September 2019

tsogud said:
EricHiggin said:

You made the claim, so it's up to you to prove that. (Might I suggest David Icke and Alex Jones since they talk about lizard people quite often and are so highly regarded...)

As for being skeptical, you're free to think Trump is whatever you believe him to be. It doesn't mean you're right though, but can any of us concretely prove whether he is or isn't human without a DNA test? If not, then what's the point in arguing it?

Consistency doesn't = truth. If that were true, then it would be easy to argue that climate science is false. Global cooling to global warming to climate change? Where's the consistency? Must be false then right? Or was more time necessary, and more data, and more analysis of that data, etc? Even then, does everyone believe in man made climate change now?

You're free to try and change people's mind, but they are also free to disagree, even if you think their thought process is incorrect. It doesn't hurt to step back and reevaluate your own thought process sometimes, no matter who you are, or how certain you are.

I do agree we all need a healthy degree of skepticism. Some here seem to show skepticism as times, while others seem overly confident quite often. Being cocksure is a recipe for disaster eventually.

Wow, flew over your head. It seems you need to be spoon-fed as well and also I just want to make this clear. I was parodying KLAMarine's bad faith debating style and flawed use of skepticism to point out that not everything is spelled out for you and you have to use rational deductive reasoning to get to conclusions at times.

In any event, it wasn't meant to be taken too seriously the way you did.

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? 



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

"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.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
KLAMarine said:

For the sake of brevity, what portion of the article you linked would you like to focus on?

You can choose whichever part you see fit to argue about.  Since the article gave you a timeline on each event, feel free to throw your best effort.  Since it is you who dispute the article, I am sure you must have something you feel is not correct.

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.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Jumpin said:
Are some of you guys actually trying to defend the fact that Donald Trump is a pathological liar?
It is kind of sad that people believe he is an honest non-foolish man.

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

Baalzamon said:

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.

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.

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.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

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.

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.

I did a quick budget based on US averages.  This is the average for a 2 person household and I'm using your wage and tax data.

$3,508 per month after taxes.

Avg health insurance plus spouse - $600.

Avg 1 Br rent - $960.
Avg car payment - $300 x2.
Avg car insurance payment - $125 x2.
Avg gas/fuel for car - $100 x2
Avg Phone - $60 x2.
Avg student loan debt payment (AS degree) - $140 x2.
Avg CC debt payment - $189 x2.
Avg 1 Br electric payment - $120.
Avg 1 Br water payment - $50.
Avg Internet payment - $80.
Avg food spend - $385.

Remainder = -$525 per month. 

Remove CC and student loan debt (again, these are averages) = $143 per month....$37.75 per week for 2 people.

We're the richest country on Earth and these are average rates, debt free for 2 people at $12 per hour.  Yeah, that's frikkin broken.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

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.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

You don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Alabama will most likely be hit much harder than anticipated by one of the largest hurricanes ever, when only a corner of Alabama had a ~10% chance of seeing only Tropical storm level winds?

Theres nothing about that which you consider misleading at all?

Also, it isn't "heresay" when it is public information that was posted on the President's twitter. That is called common knowledge and generally, we expect human beings in this day and age to be able to perform at least basic google searches when having conversations...

You don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Alabama will most likely be hit much harder than anticipated by one of the largest hurricanes ever, when only a corner of Alabama had a ~10% chance of seeing only Tropical storm level winds?

>Sure, Trump was wrong but you can't expect to always be right when it comes to weather forecasts. Potential to be wrong about where a hurricane is heading or hitting is very much a possibility.

Theres nothing about that which you consider misleading at all?

>Sure I consider it misleading but we have the benefit of hindsight. Trump didn't have that luxury at the time.

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.