Economics is a harsh mistress

[billvon 2,991]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Why does anyone care?

 

Would you support the same treatment of a Clinton?

This is Trump's birth certificate scandal.

Well, not quite.   If Obama made a campaign promise to release his birth certificate, and refused, then they would be similar.

But Obama did not make that promise.  He released it anyway.  Trump promised to release his tax records - then refused once he won the election.  So they are pretty much the exact opposite.

[kallend 2,027]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Why does anyone care?

 

Would you support the same treatment of a Clinton?

This is Trump's birth certificate scandal.

Clintons both released their tax returns, so your question is absurd.

Why do you defend a liar who reneges on his promises?

[turtlespeed 220]

8 minutes ago, kallend said:

Clintons both released their tax returns, so your question is absurd.

Why do you defend a liar who reneges on his promises?

 

8 minutes ago, kallend said:

Clintons both released their tax returns, so your question is absurd.

Why do you defend a liar who reneges on his promises?

I ask you the same.

 

[kallend 2,027]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

 

I ask you the same.

 

Come on, you're not in 4th grade any more.

[turtlespeed 220]

Just now, kallend said:

Come on, you're not in 4th grade any more.

Obama's promises on health care and what would happen with it were deliberate and measurable lies.

YET - you still support.

But that is one example - 

What people really need to get through their thick skulls is that just because you question the hypocrisy regarding the actions of one set of people, it doesn't mean that you support their polar opposite.

 

Like I have said before - I point out the irony, and the hypocrisy of "IF" this situation were flipped.  You have to realize, even if you don't want to admit it, the outrage and protectionist efforts would be 100% reversed.

You and everyone here know this - 

I just doubt that it will be admitted . . . 

[normiss 800]

46 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Obama's promises on health care and what would happen with it were deliberate and measurable lies.

YET - you still support.

But that is one example - 

What people really need to get through their thick skulls is that just because you question the hypocrisy regarding the actions of one set of people, it doesn't mean that you support their polar opposite.

 

Like I have said before - I point out the irony, and the hypocrisy of "IF" this situation were flipped.  You have to realize, even if you don't want to admit it, the outrage and protectionist efforts would be 100% reversed.

You and everyone here know this - 

I just doubt that it will be admitted . . . 

What Obama wanted and tried to get legislated was shat upon by the Republicans in control at that time.

But I too, doubt that will be admitted, by you.

[turtlespeed 220]

35 minutes ago, normiss said:

What Obama wanted and tried to get legislated was shat upon by the Republicans in control at that time.

But I too, doubt that will be admitted, by you.

The bill that was shoved through was bad.

It was based on lies.

I'm sure there were good intentions by some, and malice and self interest by others.

I agree that it was Shat on -- but no more so than most any other bill either side has tried to put forth.

[Rick 67]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I agree that it was Shat on -- but no more so than most any other bill either side has tried to put forth.

I get your point Turtle. Just like the lynching comment the other day. Turns out the people bitching about it had said the same thing in the past.

And just because you do not like a certain pol or a certain policy does not mean you automatically are a supporter of the other side. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 10/22/2019 at 6:56 PM, brenthutch said:

Thank you spelling Nazi, but FYI corporations just pass their tax costs onto the consumer, which is tantamount to a highly regressive tax. (I don't mean to "Mansplain" but that means that the poor and middle class will be disproportionally impacted)

 

Which conversely would mean that savings get passed on to the consumer....right? Which means that after your great tax cut inflation must have dropped significantly, since all those products are now cheaper......right?

Edited October 24, 2019 by SkyDekker

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Like I have said before - I point out the irony, and the hypocrisy of "IF" this situation were flipped.  You have to realize, even if you don't want to admit it, the outrage and protectionist efforts would be 100% reversed.

So you agree that if Trump were black he would have never been supported by Republicans. I mean "IF" we just get to make up random scenarios and assign random reactions to it....

[normiss 800]

26 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The bill that was shoved through was bad.

It was based on lies.

I'm sure there were good intentions by some, and malice and self interest by others.

I agree that it was Shat on -- but no more so than most any other bill either side has tried to put forth.

Your first sentence is more republican created than the initial bill effort.

Your second is not. Although it was put forth as such, by the republicans because they were trying to block pretty much everything because Obama.

I have to agree with your last 2 comments though. It's been far too long since BOTH parties worked TOGETHER for the citizens and the country. Entirely too much self interest.

Citizens United was entirely self serving and screwed most citizens.

[normiss 800]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

So you agree that if Trump were black he would have never been supported by Republicans. I mean "IF" we just get to make up random scenarios and assign random reactions to it....

Well, he doesn't seem to own any tan suits soooo...

That illegal immigrant wife though. O:-)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, normiss said:

Well, he doesn't seem to own any tan suits soooo...

That illegal immigrant wife though. O:-)

Good scenario. If your first lady was Mexican and didn't enjoy showing her tits to old white men, do you think the republicans would have had a problem with her using chain migration to bring her family to the US?

 

Oh Turtle, where art thou......

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

I get your point Turtle. Just like the lynching comment the other day. Turns out the people bitching about it had said the same thing in the past.

 

Bull Shit!!!  That is completely different!!! Back then it WAS a lynching - not like the lynchings that happen today.<eyeroll>

 

Quote

And just because you do not like a certain pol or a certain policy does not mean you automatically are a supporter of the other side. Again - 

 

BULL SHIT - There is no distinction here in Speakers Corner.<double face palm>

 

[JakGramley 2]

If we go back to the original comments about how the proposed $15/hr minimum wage at Target would cause higher prices and employee cutbacks at Target, what would this little graphic mean?  These numbers come from the Target Corp SEC filings for fiscal year 2019.  (https://www1.salary.com/TARGET-CORP-Executive-Salaries.html) That totals $41,038,633 in compensation for 5 people.  If we looked at that as workers making $15 per hour and working roughly 2000 hours per year, that would be 1,367 entry level employee person years.  Using averages and those same numbers, if those 5 company officers were paid at $15/hr and worked about 2000 hours per year, for that one year of actual compensation, they would have each been paid for 4,103 years at $15/hr.  I think my math is correct.  Does that strike anyone as a bit skewed?  According to Forbes magazine:  In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay-skyrockets-to-361-times-that-of-the-average-worker/#1c9f92c4776d)

We're now talking about 5 upper level management employees from one company (Target) ALL being compensated 4,103 times the PROPOSED increase in base pay for their employees.

[kallend 2,027]

Trump will "eliminate the debt in 8 years".  He's not off to a very promising start.

[billvon 2,991]

On 10/24/2019 at 7:16 AM, turtlespeed said:

ou have to realize, even if you don't want to admit it, the outrage and protectionist efforts would be 100% reversed.

A democrat is president - "when will people WAKE UP to the LIES and CRIME?"
A republican is president - "well, both sides do it.  No point in getting mad."

[nigel99 474]

On 10/24/2019 at 10:07 PM, turtlespeed said:

 

I ask you the same.

 

Honestly your argument doesn’t hold water. I’ve defended your views in the past, but Trump is a piece of shit.

The president has an awful lot of power in the USA and it would be reasonable for the public to do due diligence prior to electing him or her. 

Trumps refusal to release, along with some of the stuff that has come out has all the hallmarks that he is not a competent businessman and is quite likely a mob type criminal. 

Are you really content and happy to have your country run by a criminal?

[yoink 321]

2 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Honestly your argument doesn’t hold water. I’ve defended your views in the past, but Trump is a piece of shit.

The president has an awful lot of power in the USA and it would be reasonable for the public to do due diligence prior to electing him or her. 

Trumps refusal to release, along with some of the stuff that has come out has all the hallmarks that he is not a competent businessman and is quite likely a mob type criminal. 

Are you really content and happy to have your country run by a criminal?

They only answer you’ll ever get is ‘Hillary was worse’

[normiss 800]

4 minutes ago, yoink said:

They only answer you’ll ever get is ‘Hillary was worse’

Well...her emails, Benghazi, she had people killed, her husband likes cigars with other women, and that popular vote thing she won. So there.

Where's Trump's birth certificate? Hi Kenyan born wife? The pee tapes? His dignity? Honor?

Oh, bankrupt. The solitary skill he has mastered.

[BartsDaddy 7]

3 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Honestly your argument doesn’t hold water. I’ve defended your views in the past, but Trump is a piece of shit.

The president has an awful lot of power in the USA and it would be reasonable for the public to do due diligence prior to electing him or her. 

Trumps refusal to release, along with some of the stuff that has come out has all the hallmarks that he is not a competent businessman and is quite likely a mob type criminal. 

Are you really content and happy to have your country run by a criminal?

Defiantly not defending Trump, but many think JFK was great. He defiantly had mob ties.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

15 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

Defiantly not defending Trump, but many think JFK was great. He defiantly had mob ties.

Is that right? So which mob ties did he defiantly have? This one?

[jakee 1,489]

On 10/24/2019 at 3:16 PM, turtlespeed said:

Like I have said before - I point out the irony, and the hypocrisy of "IF" this situation were flipped.  You have to realize, even if you don't want to admit it, the outrage and protectionist efforts would be 100% reversed.

But you’re not pointing out any examples of hypocrisy that actually happened. You’re pointing out hypocrisy that you assume will happen because (real hypocrisy alert) you always assume the worst in anyone who isn’t a staunch right winger.

 

Now here’s something to get through your skull - just because you’re level of public outrage would be 100% flipped if the situation was reversed, that isn’t grounds for assuming everyone else is as hypocritical as you.

 

(By the way - do you even realise how many hypotheticals you’ve had to use to make your point? If Clinton did this, if Clinton did that, if Obama did this, if Biden did that - but none of them are things that Clinton, Biden or Obama did and all of them are things that Trump did. When do you stop to consider that there might be a good reason for more outrage to be directed at Trump?)

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

11 hours ago, BartsDaddy said:

Defiantly not defending Trump, but many think JFK was great. He defiantly had mob ties.

Did he? 

I know his dad did. But that's a bit different. 

Can you point to any Kennedy business project that had clear indications of mob ties? Foreign or domestic? 

 

One of the oddest and clearest Trump project that shows mob ties are all the buildings he built by pouring concrete. In Manhattan. Which is something that simply cannot happen without mob ties.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+construction+concrete+mob+ties&oq=Trump+construction+concrete+mob+ties&aqs=chrome..69i57.8602j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Coreece 190]

14 hours ago, BartsDaddy said:

Defiantly not defending Trump, but many think JFK was great. He defiantly had mob ties.

Yet Trump survived his trip to Dallas last week - he must be doing something right. . .