POLL: Does the other side of the issues at least have reasonable points?

[Mac1958]

So I've got an ideological prism? That's why I think the way I do? And you don't? You have some special access to the truth that I don't have? You are very lucky to have this rare access to truth that I don't have.

Yes. It appears that I'm part of the majority, and have not been infected with a hardcore partisan ideology.

I think of it as some kind of virus, like a mental herpes.
.

So I have mental herpes? Are you prepared to prove that?

Maybe you didn't realize I was being a little facetious.

Or that I said LIKE a mental herpes, which doesn't actually exist.

I hope that helps.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course they do. It's when they take those reasonable points beyond the point of reason that I turn my back on them.

Agreed, same here. I've tried to point out here that (a) issue positions and (b) counter-productive behaviors while discussing them, are two entirely different things.

I've clearly failed to get that point across, and I'm not sure why it needs to be so difficult to understand.
.

 

[g5000]

The amount set aside will not cover the ever increasing percentage of those drawing on the treasury.

A smaller and smaller percentage are paying in while a larger and larger percentage are drawing out.

Something has to give sooner or later.

All who work get social security taken out of their checks. Some people don't live long enough to get social security. It is not possible to have more people drawing out than is put in because you have to work to get the money and the money is taken from your paycheck and is not just something the government hands you.

I did not say more people are drawing out than putting in.

I said the percentage of people drawing out is increasing and the percentage paying in is decreasing.

If putting in ten cents a day worked when the over-65 population was 5.4 percent, that same ten cents a day will not carry the present day 15 percent that is now over 65. Especially since the percentage paying in is shrinking.

Something has to give. Basic math.

G is correct, he is not misleading you. Something has to change, because the amount of people paying per person drawing has dropped dramatically.

If G is being honest also-------------->the plan could NEVER have been solvent for the long term. Even if our wonderful politicians hadn't spent the money on us, the day of reckoning would have been just pushed down the road.

There are many, many, many ways to fix SS. Problem is, to fix it, some group is going to take a bath. That is why politicians don't want to fix it.

But I betcha G and I both agree that our biggest problem is not SS, but rather Medicare. This is a REAL problem coming quickly, and politicians are going to have to do something, like it or not, or the party is over!

No offense to G, but my personal opinion is----------->this is one reason the Democrats want Medicare for all. They can hide the shortfall by folding it into the new program, then raising taxes by telling all the new recipients that if they don't pay, no healthcare!

I agree we need reform, but not just Medicare reform. We need to reform the entire health care system.

I have posted dozens and dozens of times what kind of reforms we need. To boil it down to a single sentence, we should be buying our health insurance the exact same way we buy our auto, home, and life insurance.


However, we are going to end up with universal health care because the GOP isn't the slightest bit interested in doing the heavy intellectual lifting it would take to create a free market system that works.

While I am opposed to UHC, I am not a doomsday we-will-become-Venezuela rube. There are a large number of advanced Western countries which have UHC and they have not turned into communist Cuba.

I guess I have resigned myself to the inevitabilty of UHC. And I blame the Republicans and Trump for that. Not Bernie Sanders. Sanders is just the manifestation of America's frustration over our disastrous health care system, in the same way Trump is the manifestation of America's frustration of being robbed blind.

Venezuela is not where they are because of UHC and having been a licensed health insurance agent, I will say that our health should not be left up to the whims of the free market.

I 100 percent agree Venezuela's condition has nothing to do with free health care. That doesn't stop the Right from lying that is where government health care leads.

I strongly disagree that a free market system would not work. I firmly believe it would. But not even Republicans believe in the free market. In fact, they do everything they can to sabotage a free market. They serve their masters who put money in their campaign war chests and only pay lip service to freedom.

And they get away with it because the rube herd believes what they are told to believe.

 

[Blackrook]

If you don't address mandatory spending the deficits will continue to grow..................That sure as hell doesn't mean adding what the Dem Candidates are spewing now.......it is the unfunded liabilities that CANNOT BE PAID.........................IT IS IMPOSSIBLE....

We are on a roller coaster ride to hell.....it is only a matter of when...............They will not address it ......and it will cause a Global Reset one day...........when...........whenever the Globalist decide it.

Actually, the solution to deficits is extremely simple. But neither party has the guts to do it. In fact, they work very hard to keep you from seeing the answer because it would destroy their death grip on power.

The solution is to eliminate the annual $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures.

That would level the playing field, eliminate the deficit, create a surplus, enable tax cuts for EVERYONE, and reform campaign spending. All in one go.

Actually the answer might even be simpler than that.

On October 24, 2013, the Kellogg Foundation sent out a press release about a report they had done entitled, “The Business Case for Racial Equity”. This was a study done by the Kellogg Foundation, using information it had studied and assessed from the Center for American Progress, National Urban League Policy Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Striving for racial equity – a world where race is no longer a factor in the distribution of opportunity – is a matter of social justice. But moving toward racial equity can generate significant economic returns as well. When people face barriers to achieving their full potential, the loss of talent, creativity, energy, and productivity is a burden not only for those disadvantaged, but for communities, businesses, governments, and the economy as a whole. Initial research on the magnitude of this burden in the United States (U.S.), as highlighted in this brief, reveals impacts in the trillions of dollars in lost earnings, avoidable public expenditures, and lost economic output.”

The Kellogg Foundation and Altarum Institute

I think that we really have to look at other things than what we always do because we don't have to be in such a fiscal mess and cutting tax expenditures does nothing as long as certain issues are not addressed more directly. Because the need for tax expenditures on public assistance will continue increasing as long as certain populations are negatively impacted by policy decisions affecting their personal economics.

I think every State should first, look at Michigan's Proposal A as a way to equalize funding for School, and second, be aware that just because we have equal per/pupil funding, this is not a cure all for the historic wrongs of "red-lining."

That is a great report to read.

Everyone should take a gander.

https://altarum.org/sites/default/f...siness-Case-for-Racial-Equity-Report_2018.PDF

Attempt to equalize funding for public schools and you will have a voter's rebellion on your hands.

No you won't. Why would there be opposition to equal education for all students?

Oh sure, it's a wonderful idea in theory.

But when parents in majority white school districts find out their property taxes are being diverted to majority black school districts, and they will have to give up on certain programs in their children's schools because of that, expect resistance.

 

[bripat9643]

The amount set aside will not cover the ever increasing percentage of those drawing on the treasury.

A smaller and smaller percentage are paying in while a larger and larger percentage are drawing out.

Something has to give sooner or later.

All who work get social security taken out of their checks. Some people don't live long enough to get social security. It is not possible to have more people drawing out than is put in because you have to work to get the money and the money is taken from your paycheck and is not just something the government hands you.

I did not say more people are drawing out than putting in.

I said the percentage of people drawing out is increasing and the percentage paying in is decreasing.

If putting in ten cents a day worked when the over-65 population was 5.4 percent, that same ten cents a day will not carry the present day 15 percent that is now over 65. Especially since the percentage paying in is shrinking.

Something has to give. Basic math.

G is correct, he is not misleading you. Something has to change, because the amount of people paying per person drawing has dropped dramatically.

If G is being honest also-------------->the plan could NEVER have been solvent for the long term. Even if our wonderful politicians hadn't spent the money on us, the day of reckoning would have been just pushed down the road.

There are many, many, many ways to fix SS. Problem is, to fix it, some group is going to take a bath. That is why politicians don't want to fix it.

But I betcha G and I both agree that our biggest problem is not SS, but rather Medicare. This is a REAL problem coming quickly, and politicians are going to have to do something, like it or not, or the party is over!

No offense to G, but my personal opinion is----------->this is one reason the Democrats want Medicare for all. They can hide the shortfall by folding it into the new program, then raising taxes by telling all the new recipients that if they don't pay, no healthcare!

I agree we need reform, but not just Medicare reform. We need to reform the entire health care system.

I have posted dozens and dozens of times what kind of reforms we need. To boil it down to a single sentence, we should be buying our health insurance the exact same way we buy our auto, home, and life insurance.


However, we are going to end up with universal health care because the GOP isn't the slightest bit interested in doing the heavy intellectual lifting it would take to create a free market system that works.

While I am opposed to UHC, I am not a doomsday we-will-become-Venezuela rube. There are a large number of advanced Western countries which have UHC and they have not turned into communist Cuba.

I guess I have resigned myself to the inevitabilty of UHC. And I blame the Republicans and Trump for that. Not Bernie Sanders. Sanders is just the manifestation of America's frustration over our disastrous health care system, in the same way Trump is the manifestation of America's frustration of being robbed blind.

Venezuela is not where they are because of UHC and having been a licensed health insurance agent, I will say that our health should not be left up to the whims of the free market.

Instead you want to leave it up to the whims of bureaucrats. The free market has made almost all the medical advances we enjoy today possible. What healthcare advances does government deserve the credit for?

 

[bripat9643]

The amount set aside will not cover the ever increasing percentage of those drawing on the treasury.

A smaller and smaller percentage are paying in while a larger and larger percentage are drawing out.

Something has to give sooner or later.

All who work get social security taken out of their checks. Some people don't live long enough to get social security. It is not possible to have more people drawing out than is put in because you have to work to get the money and the money is taken from your paycheck and is not just something the government hands you.

I did not say more people are drawing out than putting in.

I said the percentage of people drawing out is increasing and the percentage paying in is decreasing.

If putting in ten cents a day worked when the over-65 population was 5.4 percent, that same ten cents a day will not carry the present day 15 percent that is now over 65. Especially since the percentage paying in is shrinking.

Something has to give. Basic math.

G is correct, he is not misleading you. Something has to change, because the amount of people paying per person drawing has dropped dramatically.

If G is being honest also-------------->the plan could NEVER have been solvent for the long term. Even if our wonderful politicians hadn't spent the money on us, the day of reckoning would have been just pushed down the road.

There are many, many, many ways to fix SS. Problem is, to fix it, some group is going to take a bath. That is why politicians don't want to fix it.

But I betcha G and I both agree that our biggest problem is not SS, but rather Medicare. This is a REAL problem coming quickly, and politicians are going to have to do something, like it or not, or the party is over!

No offense to G, but my personal opinion is----------->this is one reason the Democrats want Medicare for all. They can hide the shortfall by folding it into the new program, then raising taxes by telling all the new recipients that if they don't pay, no healthcare!

I agree we need reform, but not just Medicare reform. We need to reform the entire health care system.

I have posted dozens and dozens of times what kind of reforms we need. To boil it down to a single sentence, we should be buying our health insurance the exact same way we buy our auto, home, and life insurance.


However, we are going to end up with universal health care because the GOP isn't the slightest bit interested in doing the heavy intellectual lifting it would take to create a free market system that works.

While I am opposed to UHC, I am not a doomsday we-will-become-Venezuela rube. There are a large number of advanced Western countries which have UHC and they have not turned into communist Cuba.

I guess I have resigned myself to the inevitabilty of UHC. And I blame the Republicans and Trump for that. Not Bernie Sanders. Sanders is just the manifestation of America's frustration over our disastrous health care system, in the same way Trump is the manifestation of America's frustration of being robbed blind.

Venezuela is not where they are because of UHC and having been a licensed health insurance agent, I will say that our health should not be left up to the whims of the free market.

Venezuela is where it is because of socialism. UHC is just one part of socialism.

 

[imawhosure]

Actually, the solution to deficits is extremely simple. But neither party has the guts to do it. In fact, they work very hard to keep you from seeing the answer because it would destroy their death grip on power.

The solution is to eliminate the annual $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures.

That would level the playing field, eliminate the deficit, create a surplus, enable tax cuts for EVERYONE, and reform campaign spending. All in one go.

Actually the answer might even be simpler than that.

On October 24, 2013, the Kellogg Foundation sent out a press release about a report they had done entitled, “The Business Case for Racial Equity”. This was a study done by the Kellogg Foundation, using information it had studied and assessed from the Center for American Progress, National Urban League Policy Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Striving for racial equity – a world where race is no longer a factor in the distribution of opportunity – is a matter of social justice. But moving toward racial equity can generate significant economic returns as well. When people face barriers to achieving their full potential, the loss of talent, creativity, energy, and productivity is a burden not only for those disadvantaged, but for communities, businesses, governments, and the economy as a whole. Initial research on the magnitude of this burden in the United States (U.S.), as highlighted in this brief, reveals impacts in the trillions of dollars in lost earnings, avoidable public expenditures, and lost economic output.”

The Kellogg Foundation and Altarum Institute

I think that we really have to look at other things than what we always do because we don't have to be in such a fiscal mess and cutting tax expenditures does nothing as long as certain issues are not addressed more directly. Because the need for tax expenditures on public assistance will continue increasing as long as certain populations are negatively impacted by policy decisions affecting their personal economics.

I think every State should first, look at Michigan's Proposal A as a way to equalize funding for School, and second, be aware that just because we have equal per/pupil funding, this is not a cure all for the historic wrongs of "red-lining."

That is a great report to read.

Everyone should take a gander.

https://altarum.org/sites/default/f...siness-Case-for-Racial-Equity-Report_2018.PDF

Attempt to equalize funding for public schools and you will have a voter's rebellion on your hands.

No you won't. Why would there be opposition to equal education for all students?

Oh sure, it's a wonderful idea in theory.

But when parents in majority white school districts find out their property taxes are being diverted to majority black school districts, and they will have to give up on certain programs in their children's schools because of that, expect resistance.

That is why school choice is so important to Black Americans. In my opinion, it is the civil rights issue of our time!

There is no doubt in my mind, that Black parents want what is best for their children. If the school down the street is best, they will choose it. If the school 3 miles away is much better, they will choose that one instead.

Freedom is measured in the amount of choices that are available to you! Black Americans deserve those choices!

 

[eagle7_31]

All who work get social security taken out of their checks. Some people don't live long enough to get social security. It is not possible to have more people drawing out than is put in because you have to work to get the money and the money is taken from your paycheck and is not just something the government hands you.

I did not say more people are drawing out than putting in.

I said the percentage of people drawing out is increasing and the percentage paying in is decreasing.

If putting in ten cents a day worked when the over-65 population was 5.4 percent, that same ten cents a day will not carry the present day 15 percent that is now over 65. Especially since the percentage paying in is shrinking.

Something has to give. Basic math.

G is correct, he is not misleading you. Something has to change, because the amount of people paying per person drawing has dropped dramatically.

If G is being honest also-------------->the plan could NEVER have been solvent for the long term. Even if our wonderful politicians hadn't spent the money on us, the day of reckoning would have been just pushed down the road.

There are many, many, many ways to fix SS. Problem is, to fix it, some group is going to take a bath. That is why politicians don't want to fix it.

But I betcha G and I both agree that our biggest problem is not SS, but rather Medicare. This is a REAL problem coming quickly, and politicians are going to have to do something, like it or not, or the party is over!

No offense to G, but my personal opinion is----------->this is one reason the Democrats want Medicare for all. They can hide the shortfall by folding it into the new program, then raising taxes by telling all the new recipients that if they don't pay, no healthcare!

I agree we need reform, but not just Medicare reform. We need to reform the entire health care system.

I have posted dozens and dozens of times what kind of reforms we need. To boil it down to a single sentence, we should be buying our health insurance the exact same way we buy our auto, home, and life insurance.


However, we are going to end up with universal health care because the GOP isn't the slightest bit interested in doing the heavy intellectual lifting it would take to create a free market system that works.

While I am opposed to UHC, I am not a doomsday we-will-become-Venezuela rube. There are a large number of advanced Western countries which have UHC and they have not turned into communist Cuba.

I guess I have resigned myself to the inevitabilty of UHC. And I blame the Republicans and Trump for that. Not Bernie Sanders. Sanders is just the manifestation of America's frustration over our disastrous health care system, in the same way Trump is the manifestation of America's frustration of being robbed blind.

Venezuela is not where they are because of UHC and having been a licensed health insurance agent, I will say that our health should not be left up to the whims of the free market.

I 100 percent agree Venezuela's condition has nothing to do with free health care. That doesn't stop the Right from lying that is where government health care leads.

I strongly disagree that a free market system would not work. I firmly believe it would. But not even Republicans believe in the free market. In fact, they do everything they can to sabotage a free market. They serve their masters who put money in their campaign war chests and only pay lip service to freedom.

And they get away with it because the rube herd believes what they are told to believe.

Robert C. Koons: Trump should boldly embrace a conservative single-payer system

I have posted this article several times before when health care topics come up. But neither party in DC I don't beleive would ever embrace this plan. The dems won't because it does not cover non life threating voluntary procedures such as most abortions or sex change opertations. It would cover abortions in case of life endagerment to the mother, rape and incest. Face lifts, tummy tucks etc would not be covered either.

 

[MisterBeale]

Both parties have imploded. The Left is becoming more socialist, while the Republican party has become the party of trillion dollar deficits, cronyism, porn star mistresses, serial adultery, and corruption.

If you don't address mandatory spending the deficits will continue to grow..................That sure as hell doesn't mean adding what the Dem Candidates are spewing now.......it is the unfunded liabilities that CANNOT BE PAID.........................IT IS IMPOSSIBLE....

We are on a roller coaster ride to hell.....it is only a matter of when...............They will not address it ......and it will cause a Global Reset one day...........when...........whenever the Globalist decide it.

Actually, the solution to deficits is extremely simple. But neither party has the guts to do it. In fact, they work very hard to keep you from seeing the answer because it would destroy their death grip on power.

The solution is to eliminate the annual $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures.

That would level the playing field, eliminate the deficit, create a surplus, enable tax cuts for EVERYONE, and reform campaign spending. All in one go.

Actually the answer might even be simpler than that.

On October 24, 2013, the Kellogg Foundation sent out a press release about a report they had done entitled, “The Business Case for Racial Equity”. This was a study done by the Kellogg Foundation, using information it had studied and assessed from the Center for American Progress, National Urban League Policy Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Striving for racial equity – a world where race is no longer a factor in the distribution of opportunity – is a matter of social justice. But moving toward racial equity can generate significant economic returns as well. When people face barriers to achieving their full potential, the loss of talent, creativity, energy, and productivity is a burden not only for those disadvantaged, but for communities, businesses, governments, and the economy as a whole. Initial research on the magnitude of this burden in the United States (U.S.), as highlighted in this brief, reveals impacts in the trillions of dollars in lost earnings, avoidable public expenditures, and lost economic output.”

The Kellogg Foundation and Altarum Institute

I think that we really have to look at other things than what we always do because we don't have to be in such a fiscal mess and cutting tax expenditures does nothing as long as certain issues are not addressed more directly. Because the need for tax expenditures on public assistance will continue increasing as long as certain populations are negatively impacted by policy decisions affecting their personal economics.

I think every State should first, look at Michigan's Proposal A as a way to equalize funding for School, and second, be aware that just because we have equal per/pupil funding, this is not a cure all for the historic wrongs of "red-lining."

That is a great report to read.

Everyone should take a gander.

https://altarum.org/sites/default/f...siness-Case-for-Racial-Equity-Report_2018.PDF

Attempt to equalize funding for public schools and you will have a voter's rebellion on your hands.

Dude, it was a compromise to fix failing schools, and it was done under a REPUBLICAN governor.

It was submitted to the PEOPLE to vote for.

Michigan is the most purple state in the Union. The U.P. is made up a free thinking, gun wielding deer hunters, and the Ann Arbor/Detroit Metro area are lefties.

They still have problems, like everyone. Instead, now? Now poor districts have a guaranteed source of school funding. AND? Parents have school choice.

The day Michigan killed public schools (and then created the system we have today)
The day Michigan killed public schools (and then created the system we have today)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I only care that he tries to keep his promises........and he has tried..............Done VERY WELL...............

In the end..........at election day...........are you better off now than 4 years ago....................We are..........he wins.............and in the meantime long term Dems are jumping ship from that party from what they are now offered.........

I was better off in 2016 than I was in 2012 and I was better off in 2012 than I was in 2008 than I was in 2008 and I was better off in 2008 than I was in 2004 and I was better off in 2004 than I was in 2000 and so on....

None of it ever had to do with who was sitting in the White House.

Why do you always give the government so much control over your life?

Yadda yadda yadda...............The government does effect the business and employment sector...............If they have too many regulation and too many taxes...........they don't create jobs..............They LEAVE on go to more business friendly environments...........whether here........or out of the country............

You don't tax your way into prosperity...........California and New York are shining examples of it here........as they lose congressional seats because PEOPLE ARE LEAVING............They are leaving these Dem run places because they are taxing the living hell out of them......and Regulating them to death.........

That is what they want to offer this country.............AND WE DON'T WANT IT.............and that is why they are imploding.

All I am saying is that if you are better off now than you were four years ago is dependent upon who is sitting in the White House, you really might want to take a long hard look at your life choices and see where you went wrong.

 

[Mac1958]

I only care that he tries to keep his promises........and he has tried..............Done VERY WELL...............

In the end..........at election day...........are you better off now than 4 years ago....................We are..........he wins.............and in the meantime long term Dems are jumping ship from that party from what they are now offered.........

I was better off in 2016 than I was in 2012 and I was better off in 2012 than I was in 2008 than I was in 2008 and I was better off in 2008 than I was in 2004 and I was better off in 2004 than I was in 2000 and so on....

None of it ever had to do with who was sitting in the White House.

Why do you always give the government so much control over your life?

Yadda yadda yadda...............The government does effect the business and employment sector...............If they have too many regulation and too many taxes...........they don't create jobs..............They LEAVE on go to more business friendly environments...........whether here........or out of the country............

You don't tax your way into prosperity...........California and New York are shining examples of it here........as they lose congressional seats because PEOPLE ARE LEAVING............They are leaving these Dem run places because they are taxing the living hell out of them......and Regulating them to death.........

That is what they want to offer this country.............AND WE DON'T WANT IT.............and that is why they are imploding.

All I am saying is that if you are better off now than you were four years ago is dependent upon who is sitting in the White House, you really might want to take a long hard look at your life choices and see where you went wrong.

Yeah. I think we tend to put a little too much stock in these people. I don't really get it.
.

 

[eagle1462010]

I only care that he tries to keep his promises........and he has tried..............Done VERY WELL...............

In the end..........at election day...........are you better off now than 4 years ago....................We are..........he wins.............and in the meantime long term Dems are jumping ship from that party from what they are now offered.........

I was better off in 2016 than I was in 2012 and I was better off in 2012 than I was in 2008 than I was in 2008 and I was better off in 2008 than I was in 2004 and I was better off in 2004 than I was in 2000 and so on....

None of it ever had to do with who was sitting in the White House.

Why do you always give the government so much control over your life?

Yadda yadda yadda...............The government does effect the business and employment sector...............If they have too many regulation and too many taxes...........they don't create jobs..............They LEAVE on go to more business friendly environments...........whether here........or out of the country............

You don't tax your way into prosperity...........California and New York are shining examples of it here........as they lose congressional seats because PEOPLE ARE LEAVING............They are leaving these Dem run places because they are taxing the living hell out of them......and Regulating them to death.........

That is what they want to offer this country.............AND WE DON'T WANT IT.............and that is why they are imploding.

All I am saying is that if you are better off now than you were four years ago is dependent upon who is sitting in the White House, you really might want to take a long hard look at your life choices and see where you went wrong.

LOL

Those who were unemployed with no job might tell you to stick that comment where the sun doesn't shine......perhaps the ones on food stamps who no longer need them might say the same.

I am only a little better in pay now than 4 years ago..........little less on taxes........but ultimately I see it is better now than then.........At work........more people have been hired..........many better Craftsmen have left because the job market is booming.............and we are having trouble finding qualified people.......those with experience to do the job............

That is BETTER than 4 years ago...........PERIOD....

You can play this stupid little game all you want...........but our country in jobs is MUCH BETTER now than under Obama.

If you aren't working right now...........YOU DON'T WANT TO WORK.

 

[Mac1958]

Pretty straightforward question here. As our political rhetoric becomes more binary and divided, I wonder how many of us believe that the other side of issues AT LEAST make SOME reasonable, understandable points when they argue their side. At least on the major issues confronting us.

Thoughts?
.

One cannot have a “reasonable” discussion about politics with a leftwing lunatic.

Whenever I have those discussions with members of my family that do nothing but listen to CNN and hate President Trump, they can’t ever dispute the facts I lay out, and they make no coherent argument for their side.

Okay, but people's poor debating skills notwithstanding, do you recognize any validity in opposing views if presented properly?
.

 

[Crepitus]

Pretty straightforward question here. As our political rhetoric becomes more binary and divided, I wonder how many of us believe that the other side of issues AT LEAST make SOME reasonable, understandable points when they argue their side. At least on the major issues confronting us.

Thoughts?
.

Depends on which "other side" you're talking about.

The demented tRumpling harpies who frequent this site, or the nominal adults (no, I'm not referring to Cheeto Jesus) who really participate in the government?

Well, I'm talking about whichever side is on the other end for you. So yeah, in your case, the Trumpsters.
.

Then no. The local tRumplings rarely even try to make a point, it's mostly a barrage of "liberals suck" hatred and "our great president tRump" sucking up.

I make a point, and then I point out that you suck. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

You and "making a point" are.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

LOL

Those who were unemployed with no job might tell you to stick that comment where the sun doesn't shine......perhaps the ones on food stamps who no longer need them might say the same.

I am only a little better in pay now than 4 years ago..........little less on taxes........but ultimately I see it is better now than then.........At work........more people have been hired..........many better Craftsmen have left because the job market is booming.............and we are having trouble finding qualified people.......those with experience to do the job............

That is BETTER than 4 years ago...........PERIOD....

You can play this stupid little game all you want...........but our country in jobs is MUCH BETTER now than under Obama.

If you aren't working right now...........YOU DON'T WANT TO WORK.

The country in jobs has been improving for a decade, as have most things.

I am far better off now both individually and as a family than we were 4 years ago. I am making more than 20 grand a year than I was 4 years ago and my wife has gained even more than that since 4 years ago. None of it has jack shit to do with the person sitting in the White House and everything to do with our hard work.

 

[CWayne]

Pretty straightforward question here. As our political rhetoric becomes more binary and divided, I wonder how many of us believe that the other side of issues AT LEAST make SOME reasonable, understandable points when they argue their side. At least on the major issues confronting us.

Thoughts?
.

I just want to speak up and say that I am tired of the mango option. We need a more robust fruit, perhaps a berry of some sort, as a substitute.

 

[eagle1462010]

LOL

Those who were unemployed with no job might tell you to stick that comment where the sun doesn't shine......perhaps the ones on food stamps who no longer need them might say the same.

I am only a little better in pay now than 4 years ago..........little less on taxes........but ultimately I see it is better now than then.........At work........more people have been hired..........many better Craftsmen have left because the job market is booming.............and we are having trouble finding qualified people.......those with experience to do the job............

That is BETTER than 4 years ago...........PERIOD....

You can play this stupid little game all you want...........but our country in jobs is MUCH BETTER now than under Obama.

If you aren't working right now...........YOU DON'T WANT TO WORK.

The country in jobs has been improving for a decade, as have most things.

I am far better off now both individually and as a family than we were 4 years ago. I am making more than 20 grand a year than I was 4 years ago and my wife has gained even more than that since 4 years ago. None of it has jack shit to do with the person sitting in the White House and everything to do with our hard work.

aka the saying......

It's a Recession if someone else loses a job............a Depression if I lose mine.......

Policy in our Gov't does effect the economy whether you like it or not.............And lower taxes and Regulations have HISTORICALLY DONE THIS.................whether your job would be affected IS NOT THE WHOLE PICTURE...........

Neither is mine....................

If your POSITION IS TRUE...........why are businesses hauling ass in places like California and New York............if GOV'T DOESN'T MATTER...........why have so many businesses LEFT..........

Just a change of scenery.........hmmmm.............IF.............IF..........you are correct then the GOV'T policies of those states should not have AFFECTING ANY JOBS...........

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I hear so called conservatives complain the government is too big and gives away too many freebies.

But the second you suggest eliminating the mortgage interest deduction or child tax credits, they immediately transform into their inner welfare queen.

We are ALL guilty of sucking on the government tit at other people's expense, folks. Every last one of us.

We're a nation of hypocrites.

Speak for yourself, Goofus.

Yeah, because being a troll and committing to nothing is so much better, numb nuts.

At least I'm an intellectually consistent and honest troll....I want gubmint out of everything....Statist tools like you want to pick and choose.

So you're a sucker that believes in a fantasy land. I live here in reality. I'm sure you'll find that magical government-free nation someday. Maybe you can start your own!

 

[eagle1462010]

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

The study estimates that 1,800 relocation or "disinvestment events" occurred in 2016, the most recent year available, setting a record yearly high going back to 2008. About 13,000 companies left the state during that nine-year period.

Of the 1,800 events, 299 of those departures landed in Texas. …

In the past three years, California companies - like Toyota Motor North America (NYSE: TM), Kubota Tractor Corporation, Charles Schwab Corp. (NYSE: SCHW) and Jamba Juice, among others - have announced corporate moves or regional hub launches in North Texas. …

"Departures are understandable when year after year CEOs nationwide surveyed by Chief Executive Magazine have declared California the worst state in which to do business," said Vranich, a corporate relocation expert who jokes that he loves California's weather, but not its business climate. Until recently, Spectrum and Vranich were based in Irvine, Calif. …


HOW CAN THIS BE.............GOV'T HAS NO EFFECT ACCORDING TO THE GATOR GONE GOLFING.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

So I've got an ideological prism? That's why I think the way I do? And you don't? You have some special access to the truth that I don't have? You are very lucky to have this rare access to truth that I don't have.

Yes. It appears that I'm part of the majority, and have not been infected with a hardcore partisan ideology.

I think of it as some kind of virus, like a mental herpes.
.

So I have mental herpes? Are you prepared to prove that?

It's an opinion. What, do you require a web link or something to prove someone else's opinion? This is how far gone you are off the reservation. Maybe you do have mental herpes.