Calamity Joe wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That is the kind of paternalism that makes Republicans so racist.
Come on dude. I stated a fact.
You stated a racist opinion.
Calamity Joe wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That is the kind of paternalism that makes Republicans so racist.
Come on dude. I stated a fact.
You stated a racist opinion.
Fat hurts wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Being VP will not change Harris's personality which was unappealing to most people in 2020. I find her to be full of herself and a self-promoter.
Yeah, that's a quality you never find in a successful politician.
I'm not a mind reader, but during my lifetime and beginning with Ford, I didn't get that impression from any POTUS until Trump. On the Republican side, I didn't see it at all in Reagan or the Bushes.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
Don't you have questions how someone who earned a high salary with incredible benefits after 40 years in Congress had a net worth of $30,000? Is that person really qualified to be president?
The last president went from receiving a company worth $400M from his father to having a negative net worth at one point. Was he qualified to be president? We now know the answer to that question.
Aztec -take off your Liberal blinders for a sec. Trump did indeed take $400 from daddy but is worth $2.5 billion today. He ultimately was very successful.
Meanwhile, Biden is earning a big salary with no bills for 40 years and has $30,000 to show for it?? Are you serious? Many of those years he was making 6 figures. Was he filming Brewster's millions 2? Just giving away money?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
agip wrote:
obviously the gulf states and former soviet union nations would be honored to host him.
Maybe a few former warsaw pacte-ers like hungary and poland
Except they are in NATO now and might not want to open that can of worms.
I don't know. But I suspect the taint of Trump isn't so stinky in some other nations.
Meanwhile in the US, his lawyers are being terrorized at their homes. Not cool. Shows the problem tho - associating with trump brings a lot of heat that US orgs won't want to manage.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-impeachment-lawyer-michael-van-der-veens-home/story?id=75893232I don't think you understand what a terrible speaker he is. Decades ago, he received large speaking fees and if you watch some his old interviews, he was articulate and interesting. Now he is hard-wired to brag about his accomplishments, rant about his enemies and go off on crazy tangents. Outside of his base, no one wants to hear it.
I attended a conference a few years ago where John Major spoke and was very impressed. Trump isn't anywhere near that level.
I'd say a couple of things:
1) Companies hire speakers like HRC and Trump not for the quality of their talk, but for the prestige of it all. To be able to invite key clients and customers to hear and maybe shake the hand of a former president or secretary of state or whatnot. Trump passes that test. Very few people have been in the same room as a former president. That's not nothing. It's a bit awe inspiring.
2) Trump filled stadium after stadium with people. Not many people, not many politicians can do that. He is entertaining. He is a great salesman and knows how to be appealing. He's been conning banks and business partners for decades. He knows how to read a room a bit. He can change his subjects.
3) He may be president again and he will most likely run the GOP for the foreseable future. Many orgs would like to put money in his pocket to get on his good side now, so they can remind him later. It's clear money gets you places with Trump.
Calamity Joe wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The last president went from receiving a company worth $400M from his father to having a negative net worth at one point. Was he qualified to be president? We now know the answer to that question.
Aztec -take off your Liberal blinders for a sec. Trump did indeed take $400 from daddy but is worth $2.5 billion today. He ultimately was very successful.
Meanwhile, Biden is earning a big salary with no bills for 40 years and has $30,000 to show for it?? Are you serious? Many of those years he was making 6 figures. Was he filming Brewster's millions 2? Just giving away money?
senators do not have big salaries. He made in the 60k-70k range most of his career, and had to maintain two homes on that. Sure, that's more in 2021 dollars, but still. It's not much.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Perma bear bs. What about worshipping an orange make up wearing has been tv guy/social media influencer? Yeah, talk about impacting one's quality of life.
I worship Trump less than you do the career do nothing, clearly equally compromised Biden. In regards your perm-a bear comment, at least I am well read enough to known that Fed policies have resulted in declining GDP output per dollar expended the last ten years, and gets worse on each reiteration.
Have you for once considered that being read up on ZeroHedge has probably made you even dumber? Don’t dig yourself another hole.
Fat hurts wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
Come on dude. I stated a fact.
You stated a racist opinion.
How the heck is it racist? I stated a fact blacks vote Dem 96% of the time and in my opinion the Den party doesn't do anything for Blacks. How is anything I said racist????
Calamity Joe wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The last president went from receiving a company worth $400M from his father to having a negative net worth at one point. Was he qualified to be president? We now know the answer to that question.
Aztec -take off your Liberal blinders for a sec. Trump did indeed take $400 from daddy but is worth $2.5 billion today. He ultimately was very successful.
Meanwhile, Biden is earning a big salary with no bills for 40 years and has $30,000 to show for it?? Are you serious? Many of those years he was making 6 figures. Was he filming Brewster's millions 2? Just giving away money?
The Trump Organization is not publically traded so Forbes doesn't have access to enough information to accuratly estimate Trump's net worth. Whatever it is, it's heading south.
Senator salaries over the years have not been that impressive:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htmWhere did you get the$30K net worth figure? In addition to the equity in his home, didn't he own some rental properties?
agip wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
Aztec -take off your Liberal blinders for a sec. Trump did indeed take $400 from daddy but is worth $2.5 billion today. He ultimately was very successful.
Meanwhile, Biden is earning a big salary with no bills for 40 years and has $30,000 to show for it?? Are you serious? Many of those years he was making 6 figures. Was he filming Brewster's millions 2? Just giving away money?
senators do not have big salaries. He made in the 60k-70k range most of his career, and had to maintain two homes on that. Sure, that's more in 2021 dollars, but still. It's not much.
But but his Chinese account! ?
Fat hurts wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
It is pretty clear the real standard of living has gone down. People are less connected to their community. For example, ACA has created a more bureaucratic healthcare system. My cancer treatment, though life saving, should never have been billed at over a half million dollars. It was a handout to managed care and big pharma. Government support of student loans have funded spa-like student life experiences, and over the top athletic complexes. Really little to do with the educational mission. Our family paid off student loan obligations before buying a new car, or taking a vacation. While many have used those same funds to buy a car, to take a vacation.
Strangely, I sort of agree with some of what you are saying here.
ACA hasn't created a more bureaucratic healthcare system. But its biggest failing is that it didn't address cost. It basically just kept everything as-is and threw more money at it. This was great because millions more got covered. But until you do things to control expenses (like medicare for all would do), you are just making providers richer while still leaving millions more uninsured.
Reform in higher education is important as well. The government could do a lot to keep tuition low and reign in the competition to turn every school into a country club.
First I'd like to recognize that Ghost has made a series of thoughtful and substantial posts this afternoon which is admirable whether or not others agree with the substance, so kudos for that. It's a welcome change to the discussion
That the ACA has failed to address cost should not have been a surprise to anyone. Of the three key metrics, cost, availability, and quality, the ACA addressed only availability. To improve the cost situation would require either much more transparency on pricing on the supply side or a single payer system which can negotiate pricing much as with the medicare system, which effectively gets to the same point from the demand side.
There's probably legitimate room for debate upon what happens to quality in the latter scenario, but it's what most of the rest of the world has implement and they've generally had better outcomes at lower cost.
agip wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I don't think you understand what a terrible speaker he is. Decades ago, he received large speaking fees and if you watch some his old interviews, he was articulate and interesting. Now he is hard-wired to brag about his accomplishments, rant about his enemies and go off on crazy tangents. Outside of his base, no one wants to hear it.
I attended a conference a few years ago where John Major spoke and was very impressed. Trump isn't anywhere near that level.
I'd say a couple of things:
1) Companies hire speakers like HRC and Trump not for the quality of their talk, but for the prestige of it all. To be able to invite key clients and customers to hear and maybe shake the hand of a former president or secretary of state or whatnot. Trump passes that test. Very few people have been in the same room as a former president. That's not nothing. It's a bit awe inspiring.
2) Trump filled stadium after stadium with people. Not many people, not many politicians can do that. He is entertaining. He is a great salesman and knows how to be appealing. He's been conning banks and business partners for decades. He knows how to read a room a bit. He can change his subjects.
3) He may be president again and he will most likely run the GOP for the foreseable future. Many orgs would like to put money in his pocket to get on his good side now, so they can remind him later. It's clear money gets you places with Trump.
I suspect the guy who incited the Republican Benghazi isn’t going to be in high demand for speaking engagements. Many would have to risk getting cancelled for giving trump a mic, and it would be well deserved. But rest assured, he’ll be saying he’s getting paid bigly 100x what Obama was able to get.
Monkeys typing wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Strangely, I sort of agree with some of what you are saying here.
ACA hasn't created a more bureaucratic healthcare system. But its biggest failing is that it didn't address cost. It basically just kept everything as-is and threw more money at it. This was great because millions more got covered. But until you do things to control expenses (like medicare for all would do), you are just making providers richer while still leaving millions more uninsured.
Reform in higher education is important as well. The government could do a lot to keep tuition low and reign in the competition to turn every school into a country club.
First I'd like to recognize that Ghost has made a series of thoughtful and substantial posts this afternoon which is admirable whether or not others agree with the substance, so kudos for that. It's a welcome change to the discussion
That the ACA has failed to address cost should not have been a surprise to anyone. Of the three key metrics, cost, availability, and quality, the ACA addressed only availability. To improve the cost situation would require either much more transparency on pricing on the supply side or a single payer system which can negotiate pricing much as with the medicare system, which effectively gets to the same point from the demand side.
There's probably legitimate room for debate upon what happens to quality in the latter scenario, but it's what most of the rest of the world has implement and they've generally had better outcomes at lower cost.
the ACA does seem to have lowered overall healthcare expenditures.
"The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 in March 2010. The CBO report covered both laws that enacted the ACA. It examined the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Public Law 111-152).
The CBO report said the ACA reduced the budget deficit by $143 billion between 2010 and 2019. Skeptics said a $940 billion program that expanded services could not also save money."
Calamity Joe wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You stated a racist opinion.
How the heck is it racist? I stated a fact blacks vote Dem 96% of the time and in my opinion the Den party doesn't do anything for Blacks. How is anything I said racist????
Racists usually don’t see themselves as they are...
Fat hurts wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Bigger problem for Black communities is the Democratic machine that has driven a culture of dependence
So you are saying that African Americans are too stupid to vote their own interests?
And is that why the Republicans have been trying to make it harder for African Americans to vote?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
Aztec -take off your Liberal blinders for a sec. Trump did indeed take $400 from daddy but is worth $2.5 billion today. He ultimately was very successful.
Meanwhile, Biden is earning a big salary with no bills for 40 years and has $30,000 to show for it?? Are you serious? Many of those years he was making 6 figures. Was he filming Brewster's millions 2? Just giving away money?
The Trump Organization is not publically traded so Forbes doesn't have access to enough information to accuratly estimate Trump's net worth. Whatever it is, it's heading south.
Senator salaries over the years have not been that impressive:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htmWhere did you get the$30K net worth figure? In addition to the equity in his home, didn't he own some rental properties?
Aztec - here is where I got the $30,000 number. Again, he was only making $60,000 early on but was making $175,000 later on. We are even not discussing his doctor wife made. Again, 40 years of a high salary along with his doctor wife and $30,000? My first salary out of college was $30,000 and I saved most of it. What was he doing with his money? Coke habit? Say that jokingly but serious question. No way you can have $30000 after 40 years in Congress.
Calamity Joe wrote:
1101 wrote:
So, to summarize: Joe Biden is a crook, enriched by corrupt deals with foreign governments selling out America.
Don't believe it? Just look at how RICH he is!
Still don't believe it? OK, just look at how POOR he is!
Don't you have questions how someone who earned a high salary with incredible benefits after 40 years in Congress had a net worth of $30,000? Is that person really qualified to be president?
And what about going bankrupt a few times despite starting with a few hundred million? Sounds like a winner to you?
But he has a really long tie and there are steaks named after him! LOLz ?????JFC you trump lovers are dumb
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip wrote:
'conservatives' have been saying exactly what you are saying since FDR, when they tried to stop
Social security and medicare and other popular programs meant to improve quality of life . They said the same thing about the ACA.
Would you agree that each program is on a path of a nation intent on less work for more money? Or in retrospect do you agree that they are good additions to American life?
My first reaction when 'conservatives' complain about policies meant to help poor and middle class people is deep suspicion and a general feeling that they are probably wrong.
It is pretty clear the real standard of living has gone down. People are less connected to their community. For example, ACA has created a more bureaucratic healthcare system. My cancer treatment, though life saving, should never have been billed at over a half million dollars. It was a handout to managed care and big pharma. Government support of student loans have funded spa-like student life experiences, and over the top athletic complexes. Really little to do with the educational mission. Our family paid off student loan obligations before buying a new car, or taking a vacation. While many have used those same funds to buy a car, to take a vacation.
Eliminating moral hazard to behavior has become an addiction since the Financial Crisis. These things are not zero sum, the delude and weaken society. Clearly you are in the camp that unhinged spending can be sustained, and in fact necessary for the good of society. You seem to always draw the optimistic conclusion, but never balance against the cost. Face the facts, this debt can never be paid back.
A little hardship in life is good for everyone. The liberal mission is based on the concept that government fulfills the social contract, when in many cases it does the opposite. Liberals have no claim on a higher moral plane than do conservatives. All I am advocating for is balance.
When you are obviously capable of posts like this ^ (solid, well thought-out...), why do you post those moronic cartoons? We could all have had much better discussions here if you were posting substance all along.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
agip wrote:
well ok if you want to talk about non-tangibles in standard of living, that's a different argument.
I'd say white HS educated people may have had the least improvement in quality of life, and any non-white person has had a massive increase.
Roughly speaking.
Certain people felt they had greater "sense of community" and more "grounded value" when they could keep black people down and brown people out.
This ^ sounds terribly overly simplistic to me.
Not everything is about racism.
Fat hurts wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
It seems to me where we are on an increasing path of a nation intent on less work for more money.
Who is against less work for more money?
Many people who understand that "money" is quite a different concept than "well-being" or even the shallower "consumption capacity."