Biden's rise in 2020 race catches Trump's eye, unnerves his allies

[mikebike]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, the only thing to do is to raise taxes on the rich, provide more handouts and import millions more low and no skilled workers that speak no English and are often illiterate in their primary language.

That will drive wages through the roof and improve living conditions, reduce poverty and drastically increase productivity across the board.

 

If you recognize the issue why do you think the only solution is raising taxes, immigrants, and handouts? Is that what you hear on television? Doesn't sound like a solution to me.

[mogandave]

If you recognize the issue why do you think the only solution is raising taxes, immigrants, and handouts? Is that what you hear on television? Doesn't sound like a solution to me.

So what is the solution?

[sukhumvitneon]

Doesn't matter who you "elect", the US keeps getting worse year after year. Trump never followed through on the wall or cutting back on immigration. Instead you get tax breaks for millionaires with the working poor getting thrown a half eaten chicken wing bone in the form of a slightly higher personal exemption. Instead you get more political correctness.  Instead you get massive amounts of unneeded immigration, driving down wages and job opportunities for debt slaves, I mean college graduates searching for jobs that are full time and have benefits.  Instead you get continued pointless wars overseas that no one wants along with the obligatory military fetishism ("Thank you for your service!"). Instead you get continued $3 billion a year giveaways to Israel, which by the way, has universal healthcare for its citizens.  The US still doesn't.

[mogandave]

And the left wants to make university “free” so we have even more underemployed college graduates.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

And the left wants to make university “free” so we have even more underemployed college graduates.
 

Some democrats support that and some don't.

I wouldn't worry about that actually happening. 

Also is it really a "leftist" policy to demand working class people to subsidize free higher education which leads in general to much higher lifetime income.

There needs to be more of a balance and I think that is closer to the more mainstream democratic party consensus. 

Such things as paying back to society for doctors to serve in underserved regions for example to relieve their debt, that's a win win.

[Becker]

27 minutes ago, mogandave said:

And the left wants to make university “free” so we have even more underemployed college graduates.
 

Free education - oh, the horror!!!!

Edited May 5, 2019 by Becker

[mikebike]

52 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So what is the solution?

 

Some ideas...

 

I would suggest improving opportunity by promoting the affected areas to start-ups and new tech. 

 

Companies who feel it necessary to outsource jobs are charged 1 yr salary per job lost to be spent on re-education of affected workers (or their family if approaching retirement).

 

Weed should be nationally legalized and affected areas should be the epicentres of weed production.

 

Banks should be regulated to give near-prime loans to entrepreneurs (small scale and large) in affected areas.

 

Federally funded new infrastructure projects (bridges, water purification, roads, etc... ) should begin immediately in affected areas.

 

I could go on, but that is a better start than what you suggested.

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, bendejo said:

IMO the only reason Joe is polling so well is name recognition.  Only the people who put effort into following politics have an inkling of who the rest of the contenders are, unless they are from the area where they live.  All this polling stuff is just info-tainment at this point, it doesn't matter until the primaries are neigh.  In the meantime they have until the end of the year to get themselves known.  Amy K and Kamala scored well this week.  I don't think Joe will make it to the primaries, and that will not sadden me.

The GOP had to deal with this in 2011-2012: Romney was the front-runner, then someone else comes along and he becomes the front runner, then the following week some else comes along etc...

In the meantime I have 3 lists: those I like, those I dislike, and those who I don't know enough to make the call.

 

But hold on now -- plenty of time for GOP contenders to come along.  Republicans are going to vote for the Republican candidate because that's what they do (the Dems not so easy, just ask the Bernie supporters from 2016), so DT is polling in the 40s.  That could change, and I suspect there is whispering in the ranks regarding this.  So really, the Dems don't know who they will be running against in 2020. 

 

 

 

Biden is the slightly less bright and more goofy, more aged, Romney. Independents will embrace neither.

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

No one in the GOP will challenge Trump. The economy hasn't been this good possibly ever. Lowest unemployment since 1962 I think. The Dems have serious issues and there are too many of them taking votes from the others. Regardless who their candidate is (and it won't be Bernie) people will still give Bernie(and others) their votes. The Dems have nothing to run on other than still beating a dead horse related to the Russian witch hunt and now trying to get his tax returns to "hunt" for something else. They are trying to tear Trump down instead of building themselves up with some sore of master plan. However, the economy is most important to most so President Trump will still hold that title another 4 years.

You would have to be under 30 years of age to think that the economy has never been this good.

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So he warmed a seat for 35 years. What did he actually achieve in all that time other than suck on the taxpayer's teat?

VP for 8 years when he did ?????????? Certainly, some of the things he said looked rather foolish to me. 

In some people's opinion, politics is what people do when they can't/ don't want to do a real job, but want to be paid well.

People who look at positions held would probably also think Mike Pence a worthy candidate for president. Congressman, Governor, Vice President. Pretty good resume, but a nutcase nonetheless.

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

Well he was part of the team that saved this country from another Great Depression and I’m sure he was part of lots and lots of legislation that was helpful to the USA he did get re elected after all lol what have you done for the USA?

C'mon man. The "Great Recession" wasn't even 1/10th the hardship of what people experienced in the Great Depression even when the New Deal supplied 7 times more stimulus with no entitlement safety net in place.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by lannarebirth

[mogandave]

Free education - oh, the horror!!!!

Typical lying response. I didn’t say education, I said university.

What is the point of promoting university education, when 30-40% of the workforce already has bachelor’s degrees?

[mogandave]

Some ideas...
 
I would suggest improving opportunity by promoting the affected areas to start-ups and new tech. 
 
Companies who feel it necessary to outsource jobs are charged 1 yr salary per job lost to be spent on re-education of affected workers (or their family if approaching retirement).
 
Weed should be nationally legalized and affected areas should be the epicentres of weed production.
 
Banks should be regulated to give near-prime loans to entrepreneurs (small scale and large) in affected areas.
 
Federally funded new infrastructure projects (bridges, water purification, roads, etc... ) should begin immediately in affected areas.
 
I could go on, but that is a better start than what you suggested.

How would you do number one? Tax cuts and eliminating regulations?

I think we’re currently moving more jobs back than out.

Too many people laying around now. Legal weed will benefit a few wealthy people and hurt millions. Once it’s legal, MediCal will have to pay for it.

Banks are already over regulated. Compelling them tho make bad loans will result in business failing like the sup-prime real estate market. Affected areas need to do a better job attracting businesses, not just become more dependent on the fed.

The wall is a great infrastructure project.

[mikebike]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

How would you do number one? Tax cuts and eliminating regulations?

I think we’re currently moving more jobs back than out.

Too many people laying around now. Legal weed will benefit a few wealthy people and hurt millions. Once it’s legal, MediCal will have to pay for it.

Banks are already over regulated. Compelling them tho make bad loans will result in business failing like the sup-prime real estate market. Affected areas need to do a better job attracting businesses, not just become more dependent on the fed.

The wall is a great infrastructure project.


 

 

Damn. I love humor.

 

Thanks for the belly laugh!

[mikebike]

17 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

How would you do number one? Tax cuts and eliminating regulations?

I think we’re currently moving more jobs back than out.

Too many people laying around now. Legal weed will benefit a few wealthy people and hurt millions. Once it’s legal, MediCal will have to pay for it.

Banks are already over regulated. Compelling them tho make bad loans will result in business failing like the sup-prime real estate market. Affected areas need to do a better job attracting businesses, not just become more dependent on the fed.

The wall is a great infrastructure project.


 

 

1. De-incentivize start-ups and new tech from locating on the coasts by raising business taxes there.

 

2. Tell that to GM and Carrier.

 

3. Legal weed hurts no one. Proper regulation can keep the new industry out of the hands of “a few wealthy people”.

 

4. I honestly have no response to, “banks are already over regulated”, as the statement is patently oblivious of reality. Why would near-prime loans to entrepreneurs be “bad loans”? They are not all like 45.

 

5. It is. But it would not be in the rust belt or heartland as we were discussing so it is totally irrelevant to this conversation.

Edited May 5, 2019 by mikebike

[Longcut]

8 hours ago, mikebike said:

Unlike FoxNews talking points, the vast majority of people prefer working to handouts... Even if they need to work two or more jobs and/or use SNAP and other programs to make ends meet. Employment rates mean very little in a vacuum.

 

Subjectively, I earned $9/hr in 1976 unloading transport trucks as a student. The inflation adjusted rate in 2018 dollars is $38.85/hr. Try finding that job now.

You get paid for what you know, not for what you do. Any dunce can unload a truck or flip burgers, for that matter. 

[mogandave]

1. De-incentivize start-ups and new tech from locating on the coasts by raising business taxes there.
 
2. Tell that to GM and Carrier.
 
3. Legal weed hurts no one. Proper regulation can keep the new industry out of the hands of “a few wealthy people”.
 
4. I honestly have no response to, “banks are already over regulated”, as the statement is patently oblivious of reality. Why would near-prime loans to entrepreneurs be “bad loans”? They are not all like 45.
 
5. It is. But it would not be in the rust belt or heartland as we were discussing so it is totally irrelevant to this conversation.

1. So sticks rather than carrots

2. Look at the numbers, not the headlines.

3. Weed hurt me and a lot of people I know. So the government will decide who gets permits and who doesn’t, perfect.

4. You position is that banks operate unregulated? Banks make money loaning money, why would they not want to make good loans? You (apparently) want government to mandate banks loan money to (apparently) people that are either not good risks or that meet some government “guidelines”. Much like Fanny & Freddy, yes? Let the banks loan money to who they want, and let them charge what they can get. How many small banks are closing a year?

5. Forgot what this was...

[mogandave]

5. Oh yeah, make work. I thought President Obama did this eight years ago, no?

[mikebike]

15 minutes ago, Longcut said:

You get paid for what you know, not for what you do. Any dunce can unload a truck or flip burgers, for that matter. 

So your theory is that a CEO “knows more” than his/her assistant... or anyone else in the organization. Pure BS.

[mikebike]

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

1. So sticks rather than carrots

2. Look at the numbers, not the headlines.

3. Weed hurt me and a lot of people I know. So the government will decide who gets permits and who doesn’t, perfect.

4. You position is that banks operate unregulated? Banks make money loaning money, why would they not want to make good loans? You (apparently) want government to mandate banks loan money to (apparently) people that are either not good risks or that meet some government “guidelines”. Much like Fanny & Freddy, yes? Let the banks loan money to who they want, and let them charge what they can get. How many small banks are closing a year?

5. Forgot what this was...


 

 

1. Are you gonna argue that the coasts aren’t already over-saturated with success and expense?

 

2. National averages don’t matter to the voters in the rust belt/heartland. You should look at the numbers from their neck-o-the-woods.

 

3. Awww! So sorry. In my country weed is already legal. Yes, weird how all permits are issued by the evil government. Are you high now?

 

4. My position is that banks operate UNDER REGULATED. The rest is pure nonsense. Banks are making more than enough to offer profitable, but low interest loans to stimulate growth.

 

5. Was infrastructure for the heartland/rust belt. Your solution was a wall on the southern border. Do keep up.

Edited May 5, 2019 by mikebike

[mogandave]

So your theory is that a CEO “knows more” than his/her assistant... or anyone else in the organization. Pure BS.

One would assume he knew different, often more valuable things.

Your theory is that a CEO is just a lucky, know-nothing slacker?

[mikebike]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

One would assume he knew different, often more valuable things.

Your theory is that a CEO is just a lucky, know-nothing slacker?
 

 

You might assume that... but you would be wrong. Do you know what they say about the word "assume", no? To assume makes an "a**" of "u" and "me"... ????????????

 

My "theory" is that most CEOs are honest, hard working people, with immense specific knowledge. That knowledge is neither greater, nor more valuable than that of their researchers or engineers.

[Longcut]

30 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So your theory is that a CEO “knows more” than his/her assistant... or anyone else in the organization. Pure BS.

Who gets paid more? The person digging the ditch or, the person supervising the person digging the ditch?

 According to your way of thinking, the baggage handlers should get paid more than the pilot.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Longcut

[mogandave]

1. Are you gonna argue that the coasts aren’t already over-saturated with success and expense?
 
2. National averages don’t matter to the voters in the rust belt/heartland. You should look at the numbers from their neck-o-the-woods.
 
3. Awww! So sorry. In my country weed is already legal. Yes, weird how all permits are issued by the evil government. Are you high now?
 
4. My position is that banks operate UNDER REGULATED. The rest is pure nonsense. Banks are making more than enough to offer profitable, but low interest loans to stimulate growth.
 
5. Was infrastructure for the heartland/rust belt. Your solution was a wall on the southern border. Do keep up.

1. So you want to punish companies expanding on the coasts, in hopes that they’ll relocate to Allentown, rather than making Allentown more attractive. We disagree.

2. Well they matter to the country. Again, what are the areas that are booming doing that the areas that are stagnant are not doing?

3. What country is that, and how has legal grass improved the standard of living there?

I’m all for permits being issued by the government, You just made that up. I was commenting on your wanting to orchestrate the process control who can and can’t get permits.

4. You claiming it’s nonsense makes it nonsense, strong argument that.

5. Again, I thought President Obama did that eight years ago.

[mogandave]

You might assume that... but you would be wrong. Do you know what they say about the word "assume", no? To assume makes an "a**" of "u" and "me"... ????????????
 
My "theory" is that most CEOs are honest, hard working people, with immense specific knowledge. That knowledge is neither greater, nor more valuable than that of their researchers or engineers.

That just has not been my experience. The few bonafide CEOs I have known have had a pretty broad range of knowledge.

You are correct though, their knowledge is neither greater nor more valuable than their researchers or engineers, it’s all really worthless. The only thing that has any value is what the CEO, the Researcher or the Engineer can get done for a company. What a single researcher or engineer can (generally) get done is (again generally) very little compared to what a CEO can do.

[HuskerDo]

10 hours ago, Becker said:

Free education - oh, the horror!!!!

No, free education wouldn't be a bad thing if there was a way to pay for it but more importantly if the students would actually use the opportunity to better themselves and truly learn a skill. I suspect many that would waste everyone's time including their own. During college football season everyone roots for the college they attended. I can't tell you how many people I've come across that work as cashiers in grocery stores that attended and graduated from college.  They are talking to everyone in line about that weeks game. I always ask "did you attend there?" and the answer is "yes" 99% of the time. You don't need a college education for that type of work. Wasted time and money and probably took out student loans to pay for their partying ways.

 

I worked both a full AND part-time job while attending college. All while carrying a full 16 credit hour workload. I carried a 4.0 GPA up until the last semester when I got lazy and got two "B"'s. If I could do such a thing then what can't others instead of wasting everyone's time and a lot of money. 

 

A friend kept telling me to get a student loan but I kept saying I could never fathom being in debt to anyone for anything. He finally convinced me to get the student loan but I deposited it in a Bank CD drawing over 18%. It was in 1981 when interest rates were through the roof. I actually remember asking the banking center manager if she thought the rates would be higher the following week (they were a tad over 18% when I asked). She said they probably would be so I waited a week to get the CD. I got another student loan the next year and did the same thing with it.

 

After 4 years the money had doubled and I paid off the student loans and had cash for a new car. 

 

Free education just like all the other freebees the Dems are suggesting are stupid. If someone has to work for something they appreciate if FAR more.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by HuskerDo

[HuskerDo]

9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

You would have to be under 30 years of age to think that the economy has never been this good.

Then tell me when and please don't go back as far as 70 years ago. I will admit the Clinton economy was pretty darn good but saying the word "Clinton" makes my nauseous so I try not to.

 

The Reagan economy was good too and Trump is doing a lot of the same things (less regulation, lower taxes, etc) but the Trump economy had a far lower unemployment rate with tens of millions more on the payrolls due to an increased population.

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by HuskerDo

[Becker]

11 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

No, free education wouldn't be a bad thing if there was a way to pay for it but more importantly if the students would actually use the opportunity to better themselves and truly learn a skill. I suspect many that would waste everyone's time including their own. During college football season everyone roots for the college they attended. I can't tell you how many people I've come across that work as cashiers in grocery stores that attended and graduated from college.  They are talking to everyone in line about that weeks game. I always ask "did you attend there?" and the answer is "yes" 99% of the time. You don't need a college education for that type of work. Wasted time and money and probably took out student loans to pay for their partying ways.

 

I worked both a full AND part-time job while attending college. All while carrying a full 16 credit hour workload. I carried a 4.0 GPA up until the last semester when I got lazy and got two "B"'s. If I could do such a thing then what can't others instead of wasting everyone's time and a lot of money. 

 

A friend kept telling me to get a student loan but I kept saying I could never fathom being in debt to anyone for anything. He finally convinced me to get the student loan but I deposited it in a Bank CD drawing over 18%. It was in 1981 when interest rates were through the roof. I actually remember asking the banking center manager if she thought the rates would be higher the following week (they were a tad over 18% when I asked). She said they probably would be so I waited a week to get the CD. I got another student loan the next year and did the same thing with it.

 

After 4 years the money had doubled and I paid off the student loans and had cash for a new car. 

 

Free education just like all the other freebees the Dems are suggesting are stupid. If someone has to work for something they appreciate if FAR more.

 

 

 

 

Yes, just like that damned universal health care they're suggesting. Don't they understand that if you're dying to get it you'll appreciate it FAR more!

[Becker]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

That would be none, yes?

 

 

No.

[HuskerDo]

Just saw Biden on TV. Looks like he got a face lift. That should help get him a few more votes from people that don't realize it's really him. ????