WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:05 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:58 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10063
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
In the meantime, we have a system here that allows the rich to get very, very rich while everyone else's standard of living is below what their grandparents experienced in the 1950s. And, when Democrats try to point this out, Republicans counter by waving pictures of Nancy Pelosi and stirring up hatred against minorities.


Not true. Not even close. Try again.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15716
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
In the meantime, we have a system here that allows the rich to get very, very rich while everyone else's standard of living is below what their grandparents experienced in the 1950s. And, when Democrats try to point this out, Republicans counter by waving pictures of Nancy Pelosi and stirring up hatred against minorities.


Not true. Not even close. Try again.


Actually, fairly close:

Quote:
After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.

A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars.


And that's not counting things like company pensions, affordable housing, affordable college that have either gone away or become much more difficult for people today as opposed to decades ago.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-decades/

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:44 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10063
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
In the meantime, we have a system here that allows the rich to get very, very rich while everyone else's standard of living is below what their grandparents experienced in the 1950s. And, when Democrats try to point this out, Republicans counter by waving pictures of Nancy Pelosi and stirring up hatred against minorities.


Not true. Not even close. Try again.


Actually, fairly close:

Quote:
After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.

A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars.


And that's not counting things like company pensions, affordable housing, affordable college that have either gone away or become much more difficult for people today as opposed to decades ago.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-decades/


I know you can't fix stupid but you can point it out.

Your comment was about the standard of living in the 1950's, your support for that comment was about the late 1970's. A full generation difference.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15716
BackInTex wrote:

Your comment was about the standard of living in the 1950's, your support for that comment was about the late 1970's. A full generation difference.


And I might mention that your support for your comment was absolutely nothing.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Your comment was about the standard of living in the 1950's, your support for that comment was about the late 1970's. A full generation difference.


And I might mention that your support for your comment was absolutely nothing.



LOL

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15716
tlynn78 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Your comment was about the standard of living in the 1950's, your support for that comment was about the late 1970's. A full generation difference.


And I might mention that your support for your comment was absolutely nothing.



LOL


I was referring to his comment about my observation not even being close.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Not true. Not even close. Try again.


Actually, fairly close:

Quote:
After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.

A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars.


And that's not counting things like company pensions, affordable housing, affordable college that have either gone away or become much more difficult for people today as opposed to decades ago.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-decades/


I know you can't fix stupid but you can point it out.

Your comment was about the standard of living in the 1950's, your support for that comment was about the late 1970's. A full generation difference.



Gee , I love a good jobs report!

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:14 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17598
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:

Actually, fairly close:



And that's not counting things like company pensions, affordable housing, affordable college that have either gone away or become much more difficult for people today as opposed to decades ago.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-decades/


I know you can't fix stupid but you can point it out.

Your comment was about the standard of living in the 1950's, your support for that comment was about the late 1970's. A full generation difference.



Gee , I love a good jobs report!
I think a lot of the people with those jobs would like a raise, or at least would like to have Donny and the Republicans stop making their health insurance more expensive. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

I know you can't fix stupid but you can point it out.

Your comment was about the standard of living in the 1950's, your support for that comment was about the late 1970's. A full generation difference.



Gee , I love a good jobs report!
I think a lot of the people with those jobs would like a raise, [[Then they should vote Republican]] or at least would like to have Donny and the Republicans stop making their health insurance more expensive. [[HAHAHA]] --Bob

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:45 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17598
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:


Gee , I love a good jobs report!
I think a lot of the people with those jobs would like a raise, [[Then they should vote Republican]] or at least would like to have Donny and the Republicans stop making their health insurance more expensive. [[HAHAHA]] --Bob
Montana's one of the states whose populace have put Medicaid expansion on the ballot, right? So it sounds to me like the people there have a pretty good idea what they want but the Republicans who run state government won't approve it. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
I think a lot of the people with those jobs would like a raise, [[Then they should vote Republican]] or at least would like to have Donny and the Republicans stop making their health insurance more expensive. [[HAHAHA]] --Bob
Montana's one of the states whose populace have put Medicaid expansion on the ballot, right? So it sounds to me like the people there have a pretty good idea what they want but the Republicans who run state government won't approve it. --Bob


Most people know what they want; not as many know how they're going to pay for it.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:11 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17598
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Montana's one of the states whose populace have put Medicaid expansion on the ballot, right? So it sounds to me like the people there have a pretty good idea what they want but the Republicans who run state government won't approve it. --Bob


Most people know what they want; not as many know how they're going to pay for it.
But in this case, the answer is with federal tax dollars.

So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Montana's one of the states whose populace have put Medicaid expansion on the ballot, right? So it sounds to me like the people there have a pretty good idea what they want but the Republicans who run state government won't approve it. --Bob


Most people know what they want; not as many know how they're going to pay for it.
But in this case, the answer is with federal tax dollars.

So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob



I'll let you know on Wednesday.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 4:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10063
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob


Asks the Beverly Hill lawyer to the registered voter and long time resident of Montana.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4404
Location: Olympia, Washington
Quote:
So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob

Hey bob-tel, you've just chalked up another in a long line of hypocrisies. 2 years ago the people of this country elected Donald Trump as President. So are you saying you know better than the voters of the United States of America? Of course you do. Everyone who voted for him or doesn't vigorously hate him is vastly inferior to you. We just have to accept our severe shortcomings and acknowledge we are deplorable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:16 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17598
Location: By the phone
I'm not sure what, but something is happening in Texas. More early votes (nearly 4.9 million) were cast in the 30 largest counties than the entire vote total in 2014 (about 4.7 million). Both candidates think high turnout is good for them. I guess we'll find out in three days or so which one was correct. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 22090
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob

Hey bob-tel, you've just chalked up another in a long line of hypocrisies. 2 years ago the people of this country elected Donald Trump as President. So are you saying you know better than the voters of the United States of America? Of course you do. Everyone who voted for him or doesn't vigorously hate him is vastly inferior to you. We just have to accept our severe shortcomings and acknowledge we are deplorable.

Only 25% of the registered voters voted for trump.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:18 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10063
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob Juch wrote:
Only 25% of the registered voters voted for trump.


meaning 74% of the registered voters didn't vote for Clinton.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:05 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17598
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob

Hey bob-tel, you've just chalked up another in a long line of hypocrisies. 2 years ago the people of this country elected Donald Trump as President. So are you saying you know better than the voters of the United States of America? Of course you do. Everyone who voted for him or doesn't vigorously hate him is vastly inferior to you. We just have to accept our severe shortcomings and acknowledge we are deplorable.
Two years ago a plurality of the people in this country voted for Hilary Clinton for President. However, because those people lived in the wrong states, she lost to an opponent who received fewer votes, the second time that's happened in recent memory. That causes me to question the continuing wisdom of using the Electoral College. It does not cause me to question the wisdom of the plurality of the American people. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4404
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob

Hey bob-tel, you've just chalked up another in a long line of hypocrisies. 2 years ago the people of this country elected Donald Trump as President. So are you saying you know better than the voters of the United States of America? Of course you do. Everyone who voted for him or doesn't vigorously hate him is vastly inferior to you. We just have to accept our severe shortcomings and acknowledge we are deplorable.
Two years ago a plurality of the people in this country voted for Hilary Clinton for President. However, because those people lived in the wrong states, she lost to an opponent who received fewer votes, the second time that's happened in recent memory. That causes me to question the continuing wisdom of using the Electoral College. It does not cause me to question the wisdom of the plurality of the American people. --Bob


The wisdom of the electoral college is to save us from the tyranny of states like California and New York, states that have more people than sense. All the people who voted lived in the right states, bob-tel. They lived in the states they lived in, and did not live in California. Those states have different interests, values, issues than the great state of California. Just less people. We are a union of States, bob-tel. Do you believe we should abolish the idea of separate states and become a country that is ruled by a central government in D.C.? If so, send your money and do 'everything in your power' to support a PAC that campaigns for a constitutional amendment to change it to one. Until that happens, your complaining about the electoral college is nothing but whining. If your candidate won the electoral college and not the popular vote, you would be praising the electoral system.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:59 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17598
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Hey bob-tel, you've just chalked up another in a long line of hypocrisies. 2 years ago the people of this country elected Donald Trump as President. So are you saying you know better than the voters of the United States of America? Of course you do. Everyone who voted for him or doesn't vigorously hate him is vastly inferior to you. We just have to accept our severe shortcomings and acknowledge we are deplorable.
Two years ago a plurality of the people in this country voted for Hilary Clinton for President. However, because those people lived in the wrong states, she lost to an opponent who received fewer votes, the second time that's happened in recent memory. That causes me to question the continuing wisdom of using the Electoral College. It does not cause me to question the wisdom of the plurality of the American people. --Bob


The wisdom of the electoral college is to save us from the tyranny of states like California and New York, states that have more people than sense. All the people who voted lived in the right states, bob-tel. They lived in the states they lived in, and did not live in California. Those states have different interests, values, issues than the great state of California. Just less people. We are a union of States, bob-tel. Do you believe we should abolish the idea of separate states and become a country that is ruled by a central government in D.C.? If so, send your money and do 'everything in your power' to support a PAC that campaigns for a constitutional amendment to change it to one. Until that happens, your complaining about the electoral college is nothing but whining. If your candidate won the electoral college and not the popular vote, you would be praising the electoral system.
No, I'm actually supporting the Interstate Popular Vote Compact. Since State Legislatures have plenary power under the Constitution to allocate their electoral votes as the see fit, a number of states have approved an agreement to cast all of their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner. (Be thankful that the Compact doesn't limit itself to considering only the popular vote from the states approving it.) The Compact will take effect when it is approved by states with a majority of the Electoral College. States approving the Compact currently have 172 electoral votes, so we're getting there. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15716
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The wisdom of the electoral college is to save us from the tyranny of states like California and New York, states that have more people than sense.


So, your support of the electoral college is because the substantial majority of people in the more populous states don't see eye to eye with you on politics. Got it.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:33 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17598
Location: By the phone
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The wisdom of the electoral college is to save us from the tyranny of states like California and New York, states that have more people than sense.


So, your support of the electoral college is because the substantial majority of people in the more populous states don't see eye to eye with you on politics. Got it.
I'm not sure why he doesn't like the state that has grown during the Brown Administration from the world's tenth largest economy to its fifth largest economy. Maybe he's jealous of our success. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:59 am 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 9312
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana?
Hey bob-tel, you've just chalked up another in a long line of hypocrisies. 2 years ago the people of this country elected Donald Trump as President. So are you saying you know better than the voters of the United States of America? Of course you do. Everyone who voted for him or doesn't vigorously hate him is vastly inferior to you. We just have to accept our severe shortcomings and acknowledge we are deplorable.
Two years ago a plurality of the people in this country voted for Hilary Clinton for President. However, because those people lived in the wrong states, she lost to an opponent who received fewer votes, the second time that's happened in recent memory. That causes me to question the continuing wisdom of using the Electoral College. It does not cause me to question the wisdom of the plurality of the American people.
It causes me to question the wisdom of Hillary Clinton. She was touted by many as "the most experienced candidate ever to run for President," yet she clearly did not understand how the Electoral College works. Had she not rejected the advice from her husband, she just might have won.

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Posts: 12651
Location: mired in the bureaucracy
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Montana's one of the states whose populace have put Medicaid expansion on the ballot, right? So it sounds to me like the people there have a pretty good idea what they want but the Republicans who run state government won't approve it. --Bob


Most people know what they want; not as many know how they're going to pay for it.
But in this case, the answer is with federal tax dollars.

So are you saying that you know better than the voters of Montana? --Bob

Actually, if I understand correctly, the vote is whether to increase the cigarette tax to pay for the Medicaid expansion. The story I heard (on NPR) was that the legislature voted to expand Medicaid with the proviso that it would expire in 2019 unless a revenue stream could be found. Hence the proposed cigarette tax increase. Needless to say, the tobacco companies are fighting this tooth and nail (read: big bucks).

Do I have that right, tgirl?

_________________
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pcmaxey, silvercamaro and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.