Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine 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?

>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.

"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.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
tsogud said:

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? 

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



 

Candidate Mariane Williamson believes that we can use the power of thinking and prayer to alter the path of hurricane.

My questions are

1) If prayer is an option, shouldn't they just pray for the hurricane to go away entirely? I'm pretty sure most people's notion of god would be powerful enough to do that.
2) Has a hurricane ever hit a densely populated area without people thinking, gee I fucking hope this hurricane doesn't hit me and praying god please don't let this hurricane fucking hit me?



SpokenTruth said:
Baalzamon said:

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.

$600 for health insurance??? WTF? In Luxembourg we would get deducted less than half that amount per month from our paycheck (calculated from a 3800€ per month, which after taxes and deductions would be about 3200€, so around $3500. But that is a single pay, as minimum monthly wage is over 2000€, too much to be comparable with the example at hand. And my wife and any children we'd have together would still get full protection) and still have vastly better healthcare. No wonder healthcare in the US is so rigged.

The rent is highly dependent on where one lives, but in cities, it's generally pretty high. And it ate most of my paycheck when I was living alone, too, so I can relate on that.

Also, phone, electricity and Internet seem to expensive to me. Phone and Internet certainly are points where one could go lower to cut costs. Doesn't have to be a new iPhone every year after all, right?

The car payment... why not get an used car instead or use your car for longer period before replacing it? Cuts costs quite a lot.

While I agree that there wouldn't be much left, it is livable if you can rein yourself in a bit.



KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

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.

Is a 10 second Google search too much work?  Or is being spoon fed the information part of the skepticism? 

Anyway, here is a timeline for you.  With double, triple and quadruple downs.

Sunday, Sept. 1

On Sunday morning, the President tweeted that Alabama and other states will be “hit (much) harder than anticipated.”

The Birmingham NWS appeared to respond to the President 20 minutes later, tweeting that the hurricane will be “too far east” to impact Alabama.

DOUBLE DOWN

That morning, Trump also repeated his claim that Alabama would be affected by the storm, telling reporters, “Alabama is going to get a piece of it, it looks like. But it can change its course again and it could go back more toward Florida.”

At a FEMA briefing an hour later, Trump said that the storm “may get a little piece of a great place: It’s called Alabama. And Alabama could even be in for at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could be. This just came up, unfortunately. It’s the size of — the storm that we’re talking about. So, for Alabama, just please be careful also.”

According to the Associated Press, the National Hurricane Center was reporting at this time that parts of Alabama only had a 5% to 10% chance of getting tropical storm level winds.

Monday, Sept. 2

On Monday, Katie Rogers of the New York Times wrote that these comments were part of Trump’s “reality-show approach to the presidency.”

“With his reality-show approach to the presidency, Mr. Trump has a habit of weighing in on the day’s most-covered news stories with his own running commentary. As Dorian approached, Mr. Trump switched into town-crier mode, updating the public on what he had learned — or, what he thought he’d learned — from government officials as Dorian threatened the coast of the state of Florida, where he has owned property for decades,” Rogers wrote.

Trump criticized journalists on Twitter for their reporting on his statement about Alabama.

TRIPLE DOWN

“Such a phony hurricane report by lightweight reporter @jonkarl of @ABCWorldNews. I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true,” Trump wrote. “They made a big deal about this when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some ‘hurt.’ Always good to be prepared! But the Fake News is only interested in demeaning and belittling. Didn’t play my whole sentence or statement. Bad people!”

QUADRUPLE DOWN

Wednesday, Sept. 4

Three days after his initial tweet, in a meeting in the Oval Office, Trump displayed a NOAA forecast map to demonstrate that Alabama was originally believed to have been threatened by Hurricane Dorian. The map appeared to have been crudely altered by hand, its forecast extended to show that the storm would impact Alabama.

Later, Trump tweeted a South Florida Water Management District map dated from Aug. 28 that showed that some projections showed that the hurricane could reach Alabama. The graphic notes that advisories from the National Hurricane Center should “supersede” the map.

This map South Florida Water Management District map was created 4 days before Trump first mentioned Alabama and well prior to updated maps that no longer showed Alabama in any danger at all.

The South Florida Water Management District later told CNN in a statement that it produces “hundreds” of such maps each day, and that they’re refreshed every 15 minutes with new data.

Trump also stated, "This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast," Trump said.  95%...remember that.

Thursday, Sept. 5

Philip Bump of the Washington Post wrote on Thursday that Trump’s response to the criticism was “Orwellian.”

“For Trump, this is a fight worth having because it does two things. It pits the media as oppositional by looping criticism of his initial inaccuracy and his flawed defenses as attacks on him and, by extension, on his supporters. It is also an example of Trump’s unwavering unwillingness to admit mistakes, a central component of his personal survival strategy.”

The White House released a statement from Rear Adm. Peter Brown, Trump’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, defending the President’s initial statement.

“The President’s comments were based on that morning’s Hurricane Dorian briefing, which included the possibility of tropical storm force winds in southeastern Alabama,” the statement read according to the Washington Post.

If this is true, which the skeptic in me doubts (you should doubt it too), then the President of the United States of America was briefed on data 4 days old for a frikkin hurricane.

That day, Trump criticized the news media for reporting on his statements about the storm.

QUINTUPLE DOWN

SIXTH LAYER DOWN

Later that day, Trump tweeted NOAA maps from 4 days prior to his first Alabama reference. One of the maps identified that parts of Alabama had a 5 to 20% chance of receiving 39 mph winds; the other map said parts of Alabama had a 5 to 30% chance of 39 mph winds.

You know, 5-20% or 5-30% of tropical storm winds are certainly not 95%.  So where the hell did he get the 95% figure from?

And remember, those were from 4 days prior to his first Alabama tweet.  By the time he tweeted about Alabama, those same maps looked like this:

SEVENTH LAYER DOWN

He also retweeted an Aug. 30 tweet from The Alabama National Guard, which said that the hurricane was “projected to reach southern Alabama by the early part of the week.”

The Guard’s account had then corrected that tweet the day after saying the forecast showed “more consistently” that the storm would track away from Alabama.

LAYER 8 DOWN

Friday, Sept. 6

On Friday, the President tweeted that the news media was “fixated” on what Trump had said about the storm.

“The Fake News Media was fixated on the fact that I properly said, at the beginnings of Hurricane Dorian, that in addition to Florida & other states, Alabama may also be grazed or hit. They went Crazy, hoping against hope that I made a mistake (which I didn’t). Check out maps…..”

He also tweeted an undated video clip that showed that CNN had acknowledged that the storm would hit Alabama.

CNN reported on Friday night that the clip had aired on Aug. 28 — four days before the President’s initial tweet about Hurrican Dorian hitting Alabama.

Reporters from various outlets commented on the President’s determination to prove himself right. Peter Baker and Sarah Mervosh of the New York Times wrote on Sept. 6 that the President seemed keen to “[wage] war over his forecasting skills.”

“Whatever merits there may have been to his original statement, he finds it impossible to back down or brush it off as imprecise wording. Where other presidents would have dropped the matter rather than give it air, Mr. Trump extended the story for nearly a week.”

FRONT 9 ON THE GREENS DOWN

Saturday, Sept. 7

In a pair of tweets on Saturday, President Trump criticized the Times‘ story for saying that they had misstated the hurricane’s trajectory. He noted that he had said “very early on” that the storm “may even hit” Alabama.

Monday, Sept. 9

On Monday, NWS Director Louis Uccellini publicly backed the Birmingham office’s Sept. 1 statement during a National Weather Association presentation, saying the office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”

According to Uccellini, the Birmingham office contradicted Trump’s tweet that Alabama would be hit much harder than anticipated to “stop public panic,” and “ensure public safety,”

“The integrity of the forecast process was maintained by the Birmingham office and across the entire National Weather Service,” added.

But I guess he never double, triple, quadruple, etc...downed, right?

And if this is not enough for you, don't you dare ever call yourself a skeptic just looking for proof and truth again.  You will no longer be able to hide behind the disguise of skepticism as a veil for your dogmatic Trump sycophancy.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

"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.

Is a 10 second Google search too much work?  Or is being spoon fed the information part of the skepticism? 

Anyway, here is a timeline for you.  With double, triple and quadruple downs.

Sunday, Sept. 1

On Sunday morning, the President tweeted that Alabama and other states will be “hit (much) harder than anticipated.”

The Birmingham NWS appeared to respond to the President 20 minutes later, tweeting that the hurricane will be “too far east” to impact Alabama.

DOUBLE DOWN

That morning, Trump also repeated his claim that Alabama would be affected by the storm, telling reporters, “Alabama is going to get a piece of it, it looks like. But it can change its course again and it could go back more toward Florida.”

At a FEMA briefing an hour later, Trump said that the storm “may get a little piece of a great place: It’s called Alabama. And Alabama could even be in for at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could be. This just came up, unfortunately. It’s the size of — the storm that we’re talking about. So, for Alabama, just please be careful also.”

According to the Associated Press, the National Hurricane Center was reporting at this time that parts of Alabama only had a 5% to 10% chance of getting tropical storm level winds.

Monday, Sept. 2

On Monday, Katie Rogers of the New York Times wrote that these comments were part of Trump’s “reality-show approach to the presidency.”

“With his reality-show approach to the presidency, Mr. Trump has a habit of weighing in on the day’s most-covered news stories with his own running commentary. As Dorian approached, Mr. Trump switched into town-crier mode, updating the public on what he had learned — or, what he thought he’d learned — from government officials as Dorian threatened the coast of the state of Florida, where he has owned property for decades,” Rogers wrote.

Trump criticized journalists on Twitter for their reporting on his statement about Alabama.

TRIPLE DOWN

“Such a phony hurricane report by lightweight reporter @jonkarl of @ABCWorldNews. I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true,” Trump wrote. “They made a big deal about this when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some ‘hurt.’ Always good to be prepared! But the Fake News is only interested in demeaning and belittling. Didn’t play my whole sentence or statement. Bad people!”

QUADRUPLE DOWN

Wednesday, Sept. 4

Three days after his initial tweet, in a meeting in the Oval Office, Trump displayed a NOAA forecast map to demonstrate that Alabama was originally believed to have been threatened by Hurricane Dorian. The map appeared to have been crudely altered by hand, its forecast extended to show that the storm would impact Alabama.

Later, Trump tweeted a South Florida Water Management District map dated from Aug. 28 that showed that some projections showed that the hurricane could reach Alabama. The graphic notes that advisories from the National Hurricane Center should “supersede” the map.

This map South Florida Water Management District map was created 4 days before Trump first mentioned Alabama and well prior to updated maps that no longer showed Alabama in any danger at all.

The South Florida Water Management District later told CNN in a statement that it produces “hundreds” of such maps each day, and that they’re refreshed every 15 minutes with new data.

Trump also stated, "This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast," Trump said.  95%...remember that.

Thursday, Sept. 5

Philip Bump of the Washington Post wrote on Thursday that Trump’s response to the criticism was “Orwellian.”

“For Trump, this is a fight worth having because it does two things. It pits the media as oppositional by looping criticism of his initial inaccuracy and his flawed defenses as attacks on him and, by extension, on his supporters. It is also an example of Trump’s unwavering unwillingness to admit mistakes, a central component of his personal survival strategy.”

The White House released a statement from Rear Adm. Peter Brown, Trump’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, defending the President’s initial statement.

“The President’s comments were based on that morning’s Hurricane Dorian briefing, which included the possibility of tropical storm force winds in southeastern Alabama,” the statement read according to the Washington Post.

If this is true, which the skeptic in me doubts (you should doubt it too), then the President of the United States of America was briefed on data 4 days old for a frikkin hurricane.

That day, Trump criticized the news media for reporting on his statements about the storm.

QUINTUPLE DOWN

SIXTH LAYER DOWN

Later that day, Trump tweeted NOAA maps from 4 days prior to his first Alabama reference. One of the maps identified that parts of Alabama had a 5 to 20% chance of receiving 39 mph winds; the other map said parts of Alabama had a 5 to 30% chance of 39 mph winds.

You know, 5-20% or 5-30% of tropical storm winds are certainly not 95%.  So where the hell did he get the 95% figure from?

And remember, those were from 4 days prior to his first Alabama tweet.  By the time he tweeted about Alabama, those same maps looked like this:

SEVENTH LAYER DOWN

He also retweeted an Aug. 30 tweet from The Alabama National Guard, which said that the hurricane was “projected to reach southern Alabama by the early part of the week.”

The Guard’s account had then corrected that tweet the day after saying the forecast showed “more consistently” that the storm would track away from Alabama.

LAYER 8 DOWN

Friday, Sept. 6

On Friday, the President tweeted that the news media was “fixated” on what Trump had said about the storm.

“The Fake News Media was fixated on the fact that I properly said, at the beginnings of Hurricane Dorian, that in addition to Florida & other states, Alabama may also be grazed or hit. They went Crazy, hoping against hope that I made a mistake (which I didn’t). Check out maps…..”

He also tweeted an undated video clip that showed that CNN had acknowledged that the storm would hit Alabama.

CNN reported on Friday night that the clip had aired on Aug. 28 — four days before the President’s initial tweet about Hurrican Dorian hitting Alabama.

Reporters from various outlets commented on the President’s determination to prove himself right. Peter Baker and Sarah Mervosh of the New York Times wrote on Sept. 6 that the President seemed keen to “[wage] war over his forecasting skills.”

“Whatever merits there may have been to his original statement, he finds it impossible to back down or brush it off as imprecise wording. Where other presidents would have dropped the matter rather than give it air, Mr. Trump extended the story for nearly a week.”

FRONT 9 ON THE GREENS DOWN

Saturday, Sept. 7

In a pair of tweets on Saturday, President Trump criticized the Times‘ story for saying that they had misstated the hurricane’s trajectory. He noted that he had said “very early on” that the storm “may even hit” Alabama.

Monday, Sept. 9

On Monday, NWS Director Louis Uccellini publicly backed the Birmingham office’s Sept. 1 statement during a National Weather Association presentation, saying the office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”

According to Uccellini, the Birmingham office contradicted Trump’s tweet that Alabama would be hit much harder than anticipated to “stop public panic,” and “ensure public safety,”

“The integrity of the forecast process was maintained by the Birmingham office and across the entire National Weather Service,” added.

But I guess he never double, triple, quadruple, etc...downed, right?

And if this is not enough for you, don't you dare ever call yourself a skeptic just looking for proof and truth again.  You will no longer be able to hide behind the disguise of skepticism as a veil for your dogmatic Trump sycophancy.

Damn, went through all 9 circles of hell for that one.

Btw, read below the map he posted on the 4th one (where he says that the "fake news" could apologize) :It says that maps from weather agencies supersedes that map. And even more funny: If anything on this graphic causes confusion, ignore the entire product. Think El Prez got confused by the map and thought Alabama (which is one of his most supportive states btw) could be scratched.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
SpokenTruth said:

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.

$600 for health insurance??? WTF? In Luxembourg we would get deducted less than half that amount per month from our paycheck (calculated from a 3800€ per month, which after taxes and deductions would be about 3200€, so around $3500. But that is a single pay, as minimum monthly wage is over 2000€, too much to be comparable with the example at hand. And my wife and any children we'd have together would still get full protection) and still have vastly better healthcare. No wonder healthcare in the US is so rigged.

The rent is highly dependent on where one lives, but in cities, it's generally pretty high. And it ate most of my paycheck when I was living alone, too, so I can relate on that.

Also, phone, electricity and Internet seem to expensive to me. Phone and Internet certainly are points where one could go lower to cut costs. Doesn't have to be a new iPhone every year after all, right?

The car payment... why not get an used car instead or use your car for longer period before replacing it? Cuts costs quite a lot.

While I agree that there wouldn't be much left, it is livable if you can rein yourself in a bit.

Yea health insurance is not cheap here. Granted, with a $50k income the max you will pay for a Silver plan under Obama Care is $4700/year (total), or $400/mo (so we just generated an additional $200/mo). There are further potential subsidies for some states as well.

But the point of minimum wage is kind of what you mentioned. Not a ton left, but it is absolutely livable.



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

Baalzamon said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

$600 for health insurance??? WTF? In Luxembourg we would get deducted less than half that amount per month from our paycheck (calculated from a 3800€ per month, which after taxes and deductions would be about 3200€, so around $3500. But that is a single pay, as minimum monthly wage is over 2000€, too much to be comparable with the example at hand. And my wife and any children we'd have together would still get full protection) and still have vastly better healthcare. No wonder healthcare in the US is so rigged.

The rent is highly dependent on where one lives, but in cities, it's generally pretty high. And it ate most of my paycheck when I was living alone, too, so I can relate on that.

Also, phone, electricity and Internet seem to expensive to me. Phone and Internet certainly are points where one could go lower to cut costs. Doesn't have to be a new iPhone every year after all, right?

The car payment... why not get an used car instead or use your car for longer period before replacing it? Cuts costs quite a lot.

While I agree that there wouldn't be much left, it is livable if you can rein yourself in a bit.

Yea health insurance is not cheap here. Granted, with a $50k income the max you will pay for a Silver plan under Obama Care is $4700/year (total), or $400/mo (so we just generated an additional $200/mo). There are further potential subsidies for some states as well.

But the point of minimum wage is kind of what you mentioned. Not a ton left, but it is absolutely livable.

While it is livable, it seriously limits options. You can't put any money on the side, and considering retirement funds are not included into that calculation (but again, already included into mine from Luxembourg), it means absolutely nothing may go awry and children are out of question. If something happens, the troubles get immediately apparent. As such, I do support a higher minimum wage, as while you can live with the mentioned amount, you're out of options if something happens.

The raise doesn't have to be big, especially if a healthcare and college tuition overhaul would also come, which should give the people more money in the end. Take away the student debt and slash a third off the healthcare and that's already about $350 more per month with the given example, which might get lowered a tiny bit with a small tax raise to cover the costs (most tax increases would be on the richer people and especially to top 20%), so let's say in that example we would then be at $3400 after taxes, so still a $250 raise. Not too much, but gives at least some flexibility. A modest raise to $12.50 per hour instead of the $12 in the described model would already be enough to give those people enough flexibility ans assurance in case something happens or if they want some more special spendings once in a while, like a holiday trip.

That being said, I also support a mechanism that would check and revise those numbers on a regular basis. In Luxembourg for instance, we have a market basket on which the prices are monitored and indexed, and all wages and benefits are tied to that index. If the median price in the index has risen by over 2.5%, then all wages in the country get a raise of 2.5%, too, and the health insurance and retirement deductions of the monthly wage also go up by 2.5%. As such, Luxembourgish wages essentially keep up with the inflation without the need to be a master negotiator to get a raise every year or so. This is especially helpful for the weaker populations without a good position to negotiate a raise to begin with otherwise.



Regarding the putting money aside, while it doesn't amount to a TON keep in mind that does include social security. Further retirement contributions at that income level not only reduce taxes, but actually spur further tax credits to further incentivize them. Honestly somebody saving $150/mo into retirement for 47 (working from 18-65) years will have approximately $450k after inflation reduction (using market standard returns of 9%). This will generate an additional $14k per year basically in perpetuity for retirement (more if you want to use the principal). Add on social security for each of say $1,000 per month and you are at $38,000 per year in retirement.

The $150 was utilized as it easily fits into the excess money in the above situation (more is possible). The $1000 social security was utilized as a low number. The point of this is...saving for retirement isn't that expensive, it just scares people so they just don't do it at all. They would be much more comfortable with say 250-300 a month saved, but the point still stands, this isn't some completely impossible number (especially since 300/mo retirement would lower their taxes by approx 50, thus only truly cost them 250/mo).



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

KLAMarine said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

Yes, I guess that very small part which barely touches Alabama could have some strong winds.  But that was 3 days before Trump tweet which by that time, Alabama was no longer in the path at all.  We continue to go over the same dumb part which appears you are not getting.  We already know Trump was using old data when he made his tweet. Actually I would state that he wasn't even using old data he didn't understand the data given to him.  The reason he was questioned on his tweet when he made it was because Alabama was no longer in the path of the Hurricane at all on Sunday.  Instead of Trump just admitting Alabama is no longer having a hint of being touched by the Hurricane, he continued to try to convince everyone he didn't make a mistake.  Here is his tweet on Sunday. 

"In addition to Florida -- South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,"

Just digest that part for a moment and hopefully you understand the English language (I am not making assumptions on where you live or what language you speak natively) on the "Much harder than anticipated" part.

During that article it clearly stated that Trump mentioned that NEW data was coming in showing that Alabama was going to be hit, but there was never any NEW data showing Alabama being touched at all.  If you can show at any point during or after his first Tweet of NEW data showing the hurricane touching any part of Alabama, then you might have a case.