Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "CNN"
channel.
-
14
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pepepinochetshelicoptertou2696 Biden legally won the election and Trump cronies did everything in their power to change that. They sued dozens of times, tried to overrun the government's certification vote, tried to get electoral college members to change their vote, tried to pressure state governors to cheat for them and declared victory long before anything was decided. The "military curtain" is to protect the government from people like you, trying to overturn a legitimate and legal election with guns, pipe bombs, zip ties and gas. Trump is a wannabee fascist doing everything he could to try and cheat the election, steal from the government and lie to his supporters, whipping them into a frenzy to try and overturn democracy. He even stole from his supporters in the millions. He tried to get foreign governments to influence our elections as well, or did you forget that, exactly what he was accused of in 2016. It's transparent and dangerous, and you fell for it anyway, hook, line and sinker.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Weinmaste
The Paris Accord is not an iron-clad penalty riddled contract, it is an agreement to try to try to lower emissions. The US is also not pulling the weight of others, if anything the opposite is true, the US is one of the largest polluters.
The pipeline job cuts were all temporary and would only serve to build something we are trying to outmode. It would be like wasting billions on a new coal plant when we are trying to move onto renewable energy sources. The administration has already talked about shifting existing jobs into different parts of the energy sector to compensate job losses, creating permanent jobs for people rather than temporary ones.
Most of the executive orders signed were either undoing some bullshit Trump did or not orders at all, but actions. The remainder were necessary to push through quickly, especially as we are in a pandemic. Requiring masks during a pandemic should not be seen as dictatorial, but instead necessary for national security. Provisions that protect workers health and safety and promote Covid safety should not be seen as radical during a pandemic. These are things Trump should have done, but was too lazy to bother doing. He was too busy as well, claiming the virus wasn't real or was going to go away in the summer because of the warm weather. We finally have a leader leading the country.
They aren't paying for abortions for people in other countries. They changed a rule that used to block US foreign aid from performing or promoting abortions. This specific rule has been signed back and forth by every president for 35 years ever since Reagan introduced it, yes including Trump.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@dannytexas09
"One of the low side effect of the vaccine is getting the spike protein travel to the heart causing inflammation."
The rate is less than 1 in 10,000, and the mechanism is nothing to do with the spike protein travelling to the heart. It's actually an issue with the general immune response, where your body will be actively reacting to the foreign body. When it's working hard like that the added stress of exercise can cause damage to the heart. It's genuinely nothing to do with the spike protein.
"Similar to what the virus causes."
Not even close. All of the cases in vaccine recipients, as few as they are, have been mild and full recovery is possible. With the virus, 60% of deaths and 30% of athletes had heart inflammation.
"That is a risk with either route I go. So I rather not get either one."
The main issue here is timing. If you get the vaccine and avoid exercise for 2 weeks your risk is, as far as we know, zero. If you get covid, go asymptomatic and continue to exercise because you have no idea how sick you are, damage could be irreparable and sudden onset.
Trying to say that getting vaccinated is the same as catching covid when it comes to heart damage is like saying jumping off a diving board is the same is cliff diving on a rocky beach. Sure, both are diving, but one kills and injures a lot more people per year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1stsampan
1. You seem to be missing the point. The NRA pays off politicians, who in turn vote to give them the laws they want. That's not democracy, it's more of a wealthy money laundering scheme.
2. No, people with severe wealth inequality are prone to crime. Jamaica has massive wealth inequality issues.
3. Maybe read the Czech Republic gun laws next time.
"Firearm licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license; by passing a proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record."
There are also only 308,990 gun license holders, that's 3% of the population.
They are also required to register their firearms.
So sure, if you agree that we should license gun ownership, require a proficiency test and medical examination, and register all guns with local law enforcement, then I don't even know what you're arguing about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bill Billson
"$15 wages ages when the market doesn't call for it does not increase wealth"
What a load of bollocks. If you pay people more they have more wealth. It rocket science you spanner. The wage is double for some people.
"Increase unemployment"
An empty statement with nothing to back it up. Not only has the nominal minimum wage been higher in the past, it increased spending among the lowest earners, increasing overall spending and pushing businesses to perform better.
"The more you intervene the more severe these problems will be"
Oh sure. Let's just let monopolies crush the balls of the working class. Why not remove minimum wage and bring back slavery while we're at it? The only thing stopping things from being worse is the minute hold government has.
"But you fail to realize that ran programs are the most expensive"
1. By supplementing health the government stop medical bankruptcies. These are both terrible for the economy and yet still make up the majority of bankruptcies. Without Medicare and Medicaid we would see both more debt and more death, resulting in increases in unpaid debts. This would ruin the economy. These programs save money as a result. Also, due to various Republican policies, these programs could be cheaper, but just aren't.
"Gov healthcare and social sec that dens want account for over
half our spending"
Sure, if you ignore the discretionary spending, which is defense 57% of the time, and changes the total budget. Moreover, social security it paid for by people who pay into it, and Medicaid and Medicare pay for themselves.
1
-
@billbillson5082
"Ok, so why just 15? Why not raise it to 5000 an hour?"
Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum a family can survive on. That definition had shifted over the years, to the point where people cannot survive on it any longer.
"monopolies are nearly impossible in an actual free market."
Bullshit. Monopolies are the end result of a free market. Government is the only thing stopping monopolies. Large corporations are what stop people from entry into the market.
"ok, you runa business and have your workers wages increase to $15 an hour. Guess what happens? You won’t have money to support that, so you’ll lay off the appropriate number to maintain some sort of revenue."
Or, you just raise prices to match the increase in wages. Do you know how much McDonalds would need to increase their prices to pay for a $15 wage? A 4.3% increase in prices. Wow, just fucking wow. Look at that disastrous inflation in action. How ever will we as a country survive? It's almost as if most of these business have operating costs tied up in purchasing and rent rather than wages. How crazy is that? This is also usually proposed over 5 years so by the time we get there the value of a dollar would have dropped roughly another 10% if the last 5 years are anything to go by.
"Most of them are on the brink themselves lol, and barely managing to get by while taking on enormous risk."
If the business owners aren't earning any money then they aren't paying taxes, aren't using their dividends to pay for things, and aren't contributing anything to the economy, especially if all their workers are on starvation wages and food stamps. Their employees in turn are also not paying taxes. They are actually taking from the economy by throwing away good money after bad. Their eventual bankruptcy from having such a shitty exploitative business model will only further harm economic strength.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelalbert8474 No he hasn't. His comments were:
"You know, it's a danger to the people who are trying to control the demonstration, and it's a danger to the people who are demonstrating. So at the end of the day, it is a risky procedure."
When asked whether his advice also applies to Trump’s plans to resume campaign rallies next week, Fauci said "I am consistent. I stick by what I say. The best way that you can avoid -- either acquiring or transmitting infection -- is to avoid crowded places, to wear a mask whenever you're outside. And if you can do both, avoid the congregation of people and do the mask, that's great. If you're going to be in a situation where -- beyond your control there's a lot of people around you -- make sure you wear a mask."
He openly supports mask wearing at both types of super-spreader events, and openly states that even being at those places is a risk.
What makes Trump rallies so much more serious is the lack of masks and the contempt for masks in general, combined with the close proximity for hours on end and everyone passing through the same areas.
I'm also not sure why you feel that Fauci should be personally criticising every single person out of line. During Obama's birthday of at most 700 people, including the 200 staff, there was a 700,000 person biker event. Guess which one triggered a massive surge in covid in the region it happened in? Obama's birthday was also attended by vaccinated people just as Delta was becoming a thing. Fauci never said anything about the gathering being "okay" though.
Halloween is not secular, it's a religious holidays. It's also not the sort of holiday where people travel across the entire country to see family they haven't seen in months, or even the whole year. We saw the fallout from last Christmas when January was the biggest surge so far, a record only just broken by this summer. Christmas is indeed religious, although calling it Christian is a stretch when every single thing celebrated is pagan.
What's hilarious is that not only is Fauci religious, he even went to a religious college, and yet you think his personal preference is anti-religion.
1
-
@michaelalbert8474 Those are direct quotes. He never said anything about the right to protest being paramount, and even stated that:
"Every time I hear about or see the congregation of large crowds at a time and geographic area where there is active infection transmission, it is a perfect set-up for the spread of the virus in the sense of creating these blips that might turn into some surges. So I get very concerned."
Your claims are just false.
As for masking, there was little data at the time, however over a dozen studies did in fact measure their use and effectiveness and found the exact opposite of your claim. While they are not perfect, they do greatly reduce the risk of spread. When those studies came out Fauci took a public position, which he had not done beforehand. cloth masks are like keeping a goop covered mosquito out using a triple layer of fishnets. While it's not perfect, there is a good chance it will stick to one of the layers. Then it has to get through another triple layer to get to someone else, making it even harder.
While it's still possible to contract covid through these cloth masks, the likelihood is dramatically lower.
Sulphur dioxide, also known as "fart molecule" for the less cultured among us are also hundreds of times smaller than covid. Your claim is just silly. Covid is 50-140 nanometers, while sulphur dioxide is closer to 0.3 nanometers. What's more, I actually own 1nm masks, so I think I'll be fine.
If you're really worried put on a mask and try to blow out a candle to see just how effective masks really are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Dems in the House passed several bloated stimulus bills full of a bunch of things they knew damn well would never pass the Senate"
Not sure why you think trying to help fellow Americans is bloat? God forbid they try to increase the stimulus payments to $2K. They also are literally waiting on Republicans right now.
"All $15 min wage will do is cause even further job losses and business closures in the restaurant industry and other small service businesses that are already getting obliterated by the pandemic"
False. By increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour you automatically put up to $1000 a month (after tax) into the hands of millions of workers currently earning below $15 an hour. That alone would be a solid regular stimulus payment for the poorest Americans, causing increases in spending in poor communities. Increased spending means increased business. Increases business means businesses are doing better, not worse. Restaurants also don't pay their tipped staff, so not sure where you get off claiming they would be worse off with a minimum wage change. Federal taxes from these workers would also increase, lessening the deficit. Best of all it would cost the federal government literally nothing, all so people can live like actual people. Finally, you would be able to reduce the number of workers getting federal benefits such as food stamps. You would literally save the federal government million, and make them even more millions, stimulate the economy, and help those who are most vulnerable in a single sweep.
"The executive orders that were just signed that are killing tens of thousands of jobs in the energy industry"
Ah yes, the temporary pipeline jobs. God forbit we steer away from outdated technology and use that 2 billion for people who actually need it. The renewable energy sector has been adding jobs for years now. Pushing funds into it to retrain oil workers is ideal. The pipeline itself was also a disaster for a multitude of other reasons. 2 native american communities were suing the construction of the pipeline for violating treaties for starters. They also didn't "eliminate" any jobs. The construction hadn't even started yet.
"blah blah politicians lie"
Yes we get it, you support some really crappy politicians. I don't believe that applies to all of them though.
"If government-mandated wages and checks actually helped anybody, why don't Dems just propose setting the min wage at $1,000/hr and sending us all checks for $1MM."
Minimum wage is designed to be the minimum a family needs to earn to live above the poverty line. 50 years ago it was closer to $12 an hour in todays money, and by the time the $15 comes into effect it will be sitting around that point as well. Arguing using an appeal to extremes is just pathetic and does nothing to push your actual position. Instead, it shows how dishonest you are about the situation. It would be like trying to explain that we're having power shortages so we need to build another power plant and you claiming "that's ridiculous, what are you going to build 100 power plants, that doesn't even make sense". See how dumb you sound? Minimum wage workers are short on funds constantly. If you really want I can break down your obviously absurd argument, but you don't really want that, you just want to make an idiotic point that serves no purpose.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Increased labor costs mean that in order to maintain the same profit margin they will need to either cut costs elsewhere or increase revenue."
McDonalds would need to increase prices 4% to cover this. Most business expenses are in rent and goods, not staff. Staff become expensive in low rent high skills jobs, like marketing and IT. This small increase in prices would still net a 99% increase in wages for those on federal minimum wage. Even if the inflation was 20%, they would still be on way more money.
"There is still a minimum wage for tipped employees, and if the minimum wage gets increased for kitchen staff a restaurant will likely have to take more from the tips of the wait staff to cover, reducing their total compensation."
Restaurants don't take money from tips, that's not how that works. They pay kitchen staff a wage and barely pay front of house.
"Even if that were true for some workers, their increased income is coming from business profits. Low-wage earners pay a low tax rate, in many cases as low as 0% after deductions and credits. The corporate tax rate is a flat 21%."
Full time minimum wage earners with kids would currently be paying almost exactly $0 in taxes. If you double their wages almost all the new wages are taxed. You are also not focusing on medicare/medicaid/social security, which you should really factor in. Corporations on the other hand do everything in their power to pay zero taxes. There would also be more business as minimum wage earners have more disposable income, leading to more profits, not less.
"Also false. In addition to the prior point, another way many companies handle a jump in the minimum wage is by eliminating full-time positions and replacing them with part-time positions that don't qualify for benefits like employer-sponsored health insurance or paid time-off. It's also easier to cut their hours. Where do you think those workers go for health insurance?"
So you didn't actually refute the point, you just stated something that businesses already do and would be literally the same regardless of a wage increase. If they would do it then why not do it now?
"NYC, DC, San Francisco, Seattle, those cities already have $15 min wage. I'm sure $15/hr has boosted their economies, kept cost-of-living from skyrocketing, and reduced instances of poverty and homelessness, right?"
They increased minimum wages because their prices were already high. Minimum wage was not the reason for rising costs, but the money flooding into these cities from outside. Some stockbroker is willing to spend $1m on an apartment close to his work, his buddy spends $2m, the next spends $3m, and so on. Outside investors buy property and never even use it. Restaurants start increasing prices to match the increasing rental costs due to rising property values. They then pay their staff more to compensate their staff for the increases in their cost of living. Wages increased after, not before.
"I used the extreme example to bait you into admitting that there is some point at which government assistance moves from helpful to harmful or financially unsustainable."
Right, and we disagree about line to a pretty substantial degree. You think the point is where people on minimum wage are still getting food stamps, are unable to have literally any savings, have healthcare so terrible if they ever use it they'll go bankrupt and the rich get richer. I think we should go back to the days when families could actually be supported from a single income with relative ease.
"But Democrats, progressives, liberals, SJWs - whatever you call yourselves nowadays - tend to want to debate by attacking the arguer from a presumed position of moral or intellectual superiority, instead of debating the merits and supporting evidence of the argument itself. It's pretty disgusting."
I'm sure the irony is lost on you.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"So your best defense of a min wage hike is that the largest fast food chain in the world can handle it?"
They're a franchise. Each individual McDonalds is a small businesses. They even receive government funds allocated for small businesses.
"For many of them labor costs are their largest expense."
No, they aren't. Profit margins on goods automatically put labour costs at well below the cost to purchase goods. Unless they are tripling the price of their products and their rent is practically non-existent this is just not true. Labour costs are only high in businesses that require skills and have low numbers of physical products, like desk jobs and trade jobs.
"Yes, they already do it, and artificially raising labor costs would cause that practice to accelerate."
Speculation. They do it when they can get away with it. If anything we should be releasing partial benefits for part time employees to discourage this practice. Changing minimum wage will not do anything to this.
"You're not accounting for how that is offset by individuals who have their hours cut to compensate, which would not result in an increase in what they are paying in taxes, and the individuals who lose their jobs completely and the businesses that close for good, all of which then generate zero income or payroll tax revenue."
Right, because everything you just said is bullshit, for the many multitude of reasons I have already outlined. You don't have any clue when it comes to encouraging spending to stimulate the economy or labour costs in small businesses. You don't account for a small amount of inflation to pay for a huge increase. Minimum wage used to be pretty much at this level, and businesses weren't closing their doors left right and center. Moreover, while at this level, GDP per capita was half what it is now. So not only could businesses afford it then, then could afford to double it again now. Imagine paying people for their worth.
"Now you didn't actually refute the point, you just stated something that was already a problem, and that a subsequent forced min wage hike not only demonstrably did not fix, but only exacerbated other problems."
No, my point was the increase in minimum wage came AFTER the increases in costs. Prices were already increasing due to rent prices in New York continually increasing, which is due to housing prices jumping, which is due to outside investment causing massive spikes in prices. It was a response to a need, which is exactly what we need now.
"I just believe that an ever-increasing amount of federal government spending and intervention is not the path to getting there"
Again, minimum wage increases would decrease government spending and generate more taxes while also stimulating the economy.
"and that there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that government overreach is what has lead to many of these issues to begin with"
Like reducing oversight on the housing market....oh wait no, that's the opposite. Seriously, what is your "substantial body of evidence"?
"To suggest that more government manipulation will fix the problems related to the fallout from prior government manipulation measures makes no sense to me."
Like? You're just broadly claiming that government is the reason people are poor, which is laughable.
"My comment about the disgusting nature of progressives who attack the arguer rather than the argument was not necessarily directed at you or our policy-based debate, but more so at the sentiment often pushed by the left that the right disagrees with them on policies because they don't care about people, which is a character attack, not a policy debate."
So you decided to poison the well by trying to bait me with a blatantly absurd argument? Sounds like the work of a true thinker right there, really looking for an honest debate. It would be like me saying "why do we even have a minimum wage? Why not just set everything to zero?" and expecting an honest discussion out such a ridiculous proposal.
"Your original comment was that there is one party doing the pissing."
Right, in reference to the belief that trickle-down economics actually works. That and the 50 Republican Senators that are refusing the increase the minimum wage while voting unanimously to cut taxes for businesses, leading to the deficit climbing every year since Trump took office.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"This has been done before and there's literally zero evidence that it's ever helped an economy, and substantial evidence that it likely causes more harm overall than good."
Oh well, if you say so. After all, you nonsensical argument that says absolutely nothing about consumer habits couldn't possibly be wrong.....
"You obviously have no clue, evidenced by the fact that you believe you can forcibly raise the price of labor in an economy where the demand for it is already dropping and the supply is increasing, and that that will somehow stimulate economic activity."
Demand for labour will not continue to drop over the next 5 years, the timeframe for these increases. The fact that they are mailing out stimulus cheques is proof that giving people money stimulates the economy.
"but you oppose tax cuts"
I do, because tax cuts:
1. Don't effect people already not paying taxes.
2. Save far more money in the long run for those at the top.
3. Serve to temporary plicate the masses, only to rip away their tax cuts while leaving them in place for those well off already.
"which will only lower the pace at which wages are able to increase in the long-term"
Well sure. If wages have already gone up, they no longer need to go up. Not rocket science. Minimum wage earners however never see wage increases without this increase taking place.
"Yes, prices were already increasing, and raising the minimum wage did nothing to help anything"
It gave people enough money to live, meaning we didn't see increased bankruptcies, which is good for the economy.
"The government forced banks to reduce underwriting standards in home lending for certain groups of people, causing a surge in subprime loans which is where the meltdown started."
Um, no. They ALLOWED them to reduce their standards by REDUCING oversight and RELAXING laws. LESS oversight caused the meltdown, not more.
"How has government-backed student loans for college worked out? How has the ACA worked out for the healthcare industry? How's the future funding for Social Security and Medicare looking?'
Poorly, because they're all half-arsed watered down solutions to a problem so that corporation can be placated. You want to actually fix the issues, okay:
Universities are required to keep tuition rates at a rate determined by the government to make college more accessible for everyone. This can be by state or federal, allowing for a maximum fee. Student loans will also be government backed and interest controlled, meaning all interest is inline with COLA. Colleges will also be compensated for allowing this reduced rate.
ACA, Medicare and Medicaid are now scrapped. The government is building and buying hospitals around the country, employing their own staff and giving healthcare for free, using the funds previously going to Medicare, Medicaid and insurance. They will hire their own staff, charge their own fees, ignore red tape around insurance issues, and pay to send patients to private hospitals for specialist care as needed. They will also negotiate drug prices for the entire healthcare network as a whole. People can still purcahse private insurance to bridge the cap in aftercare or just pay for private care.
The government needs to take off the cap on social security and stop dipping into the pot to steal from those who paid in. SS will fix itself for decades with that simple adjustment. Long term they will probably reduce it by around 1/3 just because people are living too long.
"Venezuela was the third richest country in the western hemisphere less than 30 years ago."
True, and the government that came into power was both massively popular and did a lot of good for the people. Their issue was one of checks and balances. They had someone incompetent put in power and the system broke. For decades however poor people prospered. I should know, I was there 11 years ago when the value of Bolivars was high and the economy was doing well. They also relied very heavily on oil production to keep their economy growing, which eventually started to run dry, especially with government mismanagement. Allowing the free market to take over however would only be worse. Foreign oil companies would flock to the country, burn down the rainforest and leave people in squalor, so they can pay themselves millions. Only a government could stop that sort of activity.
"Yeah, why not? Having a minimum wage accomplishes nothing other than limiting opportunity and getting progressive politicians elected. "
They you advocate for a vast redistribution of wealth through other government systems? Maybe a reverse tax? Universal income? Let me know when you pick something that actually helps people and stimulates the economy rather than allowing Amazon and Wall Street brokers to profit off the poor and increase stock prices while not actually pushing money back into the economy because they're too busy setting up accounts in the Cayman islands.
"Taxes revenues climbed every year under Trump"
No: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-bill-did-not-cause-revenue-rise
Also, the ever rising deficit means he not only decreased tax revenues, he also increased debt. And for what?
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Your arguments got much weaker as this progressed."
That's not even an argument, and I'm getting pretty sick of your general lack of understanding economics.
"That's a snarky comment, but provides nothing to refute my point."
Again, ignoring consumer habits. it's like the very words themselves confuse you.
"Do you have any evidence to support that? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Given the impending flood of unskilled workers into the country and the ever-increasing amount of automation replacing low-skilled jobs, there are many more factors indicating that demand in that area of the labor market will decline."
That has been true for literally the entire existence of the US. Demand doesn't drop. More people means more money in the market, means more businesses being created and expanded, means more jobs. That has always been true and continues to be true.
"That's why I made the earlier statement that you mocked - if you believe just sending people checks will "stimulate" the economy, why not just send checks for $10,000 every month, or $100K every week. Maybe $1MM per day. Man, that would sure "stimulate", right?"
Because there is a balance to these things. You need to balance stimulating the economy with inflation caused by, as you say, printing money. Weighing up how much people actually need, and how much they would even spend, with inflation and how much to give them is key. You also talk about borrowing money to survive, but survive in what way? Survive economically, hence the term 'stimulus'? They are investing in people to spend money in the economy to grow the economy overall. They understand that giving people money is good for the economy.
"The idea is to get more of those people situated well enough that they start paying some taxes. They don't exist in a vacuum of just being the people who don't and will never pay taxes."
Like paying them more..... financial class mobility is lower in the US than many other western nations because of this lack of a social safety net.
"Why is that more of a concern than how it helps people at the bottom? That argument always kills me. That's like saying eliminating poverty would be unjust if in the process more billionaires were created. It's this farcical narrative that believes the rich get all of their money by stealing it from the poor."
Because the only farcical narrative we have been spoon-fed is that giving billionaires more money will help the economy because they will reinvest that money domestically. While that may have been true 100 years ago, these days billionaires horde their cash and spend it overseas rather building something here. They bet on the stock market, then bet on other people's bets, then bet on those bets, and don't actually create jobs. Giving more money to those at the bottom yields direct results as they now have more financial freedom to spend in the economy.
"That's counterintuitive to #1. Also, the "ripping away" is the result of bloated government spending and loopholes in the code that benefit political donors."
Sure, we need a sliding scale with less loopholes. Upper tax rates could do with being a lot higher too.
"Everyone always wants to be improving their standard of living, and the cost of living is always increasing. Without wage growth then standard of livings by default decline."
Right, so minimum wage not moving in years has caused a drop in standard of living, so we should increase it. Again, by the time minimum wage hits $15 under this proposal (which will be closer to $12 in today's money) it will be back to the same level it was at in 1969 (again, in today's money).
"The government forced banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to riskier borrowers from lower income areas under the belief that it would decrease the disparity in home ownership rates between classes and races. Banks responded by successfully lobbying for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had previously prevented institutions from commingling investment banking and commercial banking activity. The government also became the financial backer of the riskier loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which meant banks now had no risk on their subprime loans. Yes, there were loosened restrictions and decreased oversight, but that was all as a result of the government manipulating the market, distorting prices, and changing the market-driven risk/reward fundamentals. It had disastrous results that almost destroyed the entire worldwide economy. There's no reason to believe manipulating wages and distorting labor markets would work out any better."
Wrong. The failed mortgages that caused the financial collapse were not the risky ones. Risky mortgages were packages and financed accordingly, with appropriate interest rates to account for levels of risk. They accounted for a percentage of these to fail. The loans that failed en masse were AAA rated and were not checked properly when sold in packages by the thousand. These are the loans that failed. The government bought these loans with the guarantee they were correctly rated, which they were not.
"That explanation could be used to describe every US government program ever."
So why not advocate for real policy that causes real change rather than whining about the system not working and claiming we need to be saved by Amazon or some shit?
"because it's widely recognized that the US economy, by all traditional measures, was extremely strong prior to the pandemic - unemployment rates and labor force participation statistics were all at or near record levels."
Yes and no. Economies don't change overnight, and coasting off a good economy, then pumping billions into it to artificially inflate the numbers will make anyone look good. But as you said, they were borrowing from the future to survive, and in doing so increased the deficit by hundreds of billions.
"Lot of conjecture there, but the best way to stimulate the economy is to get out of its way, as evidenced by Trump's economic policies. Government should be small and limited, and only get involved to the degree needed to keep markets free and fair."
Lol. Sure thing. While we're at it why don't we lower their taxes and jerk off their CEOs. I'm sure that won't ruin the deficit as they lobby to have the minimum wage dropped to $3.
"And how do you square continuously advocating for the expansion of government programs, but then complain about deficit spending. Where's the historical precedent for massive spending that lowered deficits?"
Not deficit spending, 'the deficit', meaning not just more spending but also less income, either/or. Republicans have a long history of cutting taxes and increasing military spending, while then complaining we have no money for government programs. Programs which would be more than well enough funded without the constant tax cuts and increases in other spending. Investing in programs that actually help people pays off. Just look at Obamacare. They spend money to reduce those not covered by health insurance, which in turn reduce medical bankruptcies and improved the overall strength of the economy. The result was an economy that crawled out of recession, dropped the deficit to very low levels and dropped unemployment to less than half what it was. Spending helped the economy overall. Your argument seems to ignore that investment draws dividends.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Why do you think America has a fourth of the population of China and India, but has a larger GDP than both of them combined?"
Because after WWII they used the combined technological advancements and the fact that they were the only industrialised nation left to dominate the market. Most European countries had to completely rebuild. They also used immigrants consistently throughout their entire history. Sorry you want to close the door now you're already here. It will however negatively effect the economy.
"You're talking in circles and can't even follow your own logic thread. Subprime loans were rated AAA because they were being backed by the federal government. The rating is based on default risk. The default risk was justified as being very low when the government is the creditor, just like Treasury bonds."
Wrong. The subprime loans were not being properly vetted. Loans being government backed doesn't change risk or loan ratings. Loan ratings are based on the percentage chance of them failing. This is were you are confused. The problem was that the banks didn't vet loans correctly and sold them as low risk when they packaged and resold, when in fact they were high risk. Seriously, have you not seen the Big Short? They explain this all very very well. I'm sure Margot Robbie would keep your attention for at least a little while before you start whining about the government.
"Pay people what they're worth!"
Yes, a radical idea. Did you know that if wages increased with GDP minimum wage would be $24 an hour? People are being undervalued.
"Give us checks and free shit!"
A idiotic mentality really. People are earning an income for the business they work for. They are then paid a portion of this worked income as compensation. The lowest amount of compensation people see is currently less than a third of what it was in the past based on that income. Wanting things for free is the opposite of what I want. I want people to be paid fairly. Is that so much to ask?
"there is no magic government policy that fixes everything. Less government involvement and more freedom is the path to prosperity for more people"
The whole point of the government is to protect people from businesses overreaching and exploiting things, be it people's value, the environment, public safety or anything else we have regs on. The market on the other hand does everything it can to monopolize and cut worker rights, protections and conditions. Really not sure why you love monopolies and hate workers rights.
"that the economy was good under him"
Pretty much. Employment was in a nosedive when he took office. He reversed it and dropped unemployment down to 4.7%, less than half what it was when he took office. Blaming Obama for the financial crisis and the deficit, even though jobs grew consistently, is simply objectively stupid. As I said, and will say again, economies don't change overnight. Arguing that the entire financial crisis, the largest recession since the great depression, took a few years to right itself because of Obama just makes you look idiotic. Arguing that a crisis that massively hit homeowners is for some reason causing huge issues with the middle class makes you look idiotic. Arguing that zero interest rates are a bad idea when banks are literally refusing to write mortgages makes you look idiotic. Obama had slow and steady growth year over year. What more could you want in light of a recession? Are you angry GDP didn't increase 20% in March of him taking office or something? Seriously, what is your guidestick for a good economy after a huge global economic recession?
"Obama ran the biggest deficits of any president in history"
Big oof......
"I'm not even going to address the assertion that Obamacare helped the US crawl out of a recession and reduced deficits. That's too dumb of a claim to even discuss. There's a reason why the middle class became a minority class less than 5 years after it's implementation. What a magical program."
Of course you aren't, because then you would have to admit that the program lowered bankruptcies and actually saved lives by allowing people to get healthcare. That's not really the capitalistic way of living though is it.
"Let's all just quit our jobs and collect government benefits for everything. What would we call that program - the Progress Initiative?"
See what I mean about the argumentum ad absurdums. You really can't help yourself from being an inflammatory child. Social support networks help people to, more than anything, not go bankrupt. Bankruptcies are what broke the economy the last time. Support networks work just fine in other countries, and show that issues like mass poverty and homelessness shouldn't really be a first world problem.
I think the main issue is that you are far more interested in the bottom line than individuals. You constantly undervalue individuals in the hopes that large businesses can exploit them enough to grow. You think that this will eventually help those exploited individuals and the economy as a whole. So lets go with a hypothetical. Would you sacrifice 10% of GDP to have the US poverty rate drop by 80%?
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709 Okay, let's make this quick because you're being stupider than usual.
Other countries didn't have a drop in labour post WWII and neither did the US. The labour markets shifted in countries either to tech or rebuilding. Really not sure what your argument is here.
Historically legal immigration was purposefully made more difficult in the US because they were trying to encourage illegal immigration. Both types of immigration pay into the system more than they take out.
At this point you just need to admit that you have no idea what caused the housing market crash. It's just sad really that you're this far up your own arse. The low quality loans directly run by the government programs did not cause the crisis. Banks marketing subprime loans as AAA did. They were not encouraged to do this, they were underregulated.
Not sure what your argument is since highschoolers used to make that when comparing the income of the movie theatre. Also, yes, you literally want people to be paid less.
You think free markets protect workers rights? Are you joking?
Trump grew the economy and jobs at the same rate as Obama did after he stabilised the economy. The recession was only second to the great depression, so of course recovery was slow. A faster recovery would have made the market volatile. Hypocritically, you also can't help but strawman.
Big oof because someone hasn't looked at the deficit recently.
No, ACA did not cause prices to skyrocket. It actually reduced the increases in those substantially as they had been skyrocketing for years.
Yes, foreclosures are the sole reason the market was fucked, and almost everyone that foreclosed went bankrupt. The credit crunch and job losses were knock on effects, not the main cause. Personal bankruptcies are also not good for the economy. Arguing otherwise is just sad.
Historical precedent? Wow you are a moron. Historically workers rights and personal wages for those at the bottom have only improved with government intervention. Read a fucking book.
Not an ad hominem if it's true though is it. Larger businesses don't support higher minimum wages, not sure where you got that idea. Also, arguing wage growth while literally arguing against a wage increase makes you look idiotic. Here, this is how you sound:
"You can't be paid $15 an hour. How will you ever manage to earn more than minimum wage?" - some business arsehole who pays their workers $8 an hour.
Seriously, go break up a union or beat up a teenager for earning too much or some shit. Would be right up your alley.
So to cap it, you keep regurgitating the same points then claiming that you are such a fucking genius with the economy. You are of course not, and it's embarrassing talking to someone so smoothbrained. I'm not here to undo years of indoctrination that makes you believe cutting wages actually increases them. You can't even argue what the current deficit is without declaring victory like a pathetic politician at a podium. You're an embarrassment that shills for businesses, and you're part of the problem. I'm sure you'll go off and decide you won this argument because you're just that simple. Maybe you'll even know what a deficit is pretty soon, but until that day enjoy being an idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@salan3507
"Deaths have been labeled as "covid" that were other causes."
Very rarely, if at all. All states have their own way of counting covid data, and the vast majority determine the cause of death before labelling the deaths as covid deaths. Your theory would also mean that deaths didn't really shift from 2019 to 2020, which is wrong deaths increased massively, and other types of disease related deaths would decrease, which also didn't happen.
"Also, people are being admitted into hospitals with both reactions to the vaccine and vaccinated with covid."
Very rarely. Almost everyone in a hospital bed are there because of covid. I say this as someone in the medical industry with a hospital that is literally full, in a county that is also full.
"Why is that shocking, though, considering people are being offered fast food if they get this so called vaccine, or being entered into a "lottery", or other shady ideas."
That's not shady. People are being offered positive incentives to get vaccinated in an effort to increase vaccination rates. That's a good idea.
"I trust my friends who work at the hospitals and are seeing this first hand far more than what is being "reported"."
Okay, I trust myself more than your imaginary "friend".
"There is obviously a huge agenda to push these vaccines using fearmongering tactics and bribery"
Sure. So?
"and if people aren't questioning that they are blind or asleep"
Questioning what? Fearmongering is the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue. That doesn't make it inherently bad. Bribing people to do something health is also not a bad thing. "Hey kids, if you eat your vegetables you can have dessert". Totally normal. The Sad part is we have to treat the unvaccinated like children to get them to do something that could save their lives.
"Delta version....delta is also the term for deep sleep. How fitting."
Because it's killing people? More accurate than you could imagine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1stsampan
1. It doesn't make you more violent, it makes a violent act more extreme.
2. But they all have far less homicides than the US, the place with the most firearm freedom. No licences, no registration. You continue to use this entirely false Czech Republic comparison, yet they have licensing for both proficiency and mental health, and registration, and far lower gun ownership rates.
3. Conscription has its own issues of rights. Forcing people to conscript just because you want guns is pretty bizarre.
Israel is a racist country founded by expelling hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, and continuously occupying and settling on their land. Israelis hold some of the most horrific views of any nation. Yes, Palestine is also awful, but let's not sit here and whine about Israel being attacked when they've killed far more Paestinians both before and after they were attacked. They shut an entire regions water and electricity off, trying to starve out hundreds of thousands of people. They flattened rows of buildings. They've indiscriminately bombed hospitals, schools and homes. But sure, that's what Israel needs MORE military personnel shooting civilians and medical aid workers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CSPORTPDX
"In what kind of bonkers universe do you claim that because they funded SAFETY and the virus ESCAPED"
Again, this is a completely unproven theory. Show some evidence that this even happened.
"dude I was being sarcastic about the clinical trials"
So you were just pretending to be dumb. Wow, genius there dude.
"they have been torturing monkeys there for decades with little to show for it"
How do you know? Show me the monkeys, the testing, the papers. Show me what they did.
"And again of course there are animal trials for infectious diseases."
You literally just spent hours arguing against this.
"insert weirdly homoerotic rant here"
I mean seriously, you should talk to someone about fantasies like that rather than ranting online. Very unhealthy.
"in all seriousness, how many boosters are YOU going to take"
Depends. Currently boosters are for people with compromised immune systems who see much earlier vaccine waning.
"think about how whacked out and destroyed your natural immunity will be after 6 or 7 of those shots"
That's not how any of that works. Vaccines encourage your immune system, not suppress it.
So you don't understand animal research, research funding, clinical trials, vaccines or the immune system, and now you're attacking the man who is literally the messenger for the entire government scientific community because you don't understand his job either. Truly disheartening really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CSPORTPDX
"I never said there was some alternative."
Actually you challenged me with finding one. This admission is a big win for me though.
"You again fail to see my point about trusting fauci at all."
I fail to see it because it's irrelevant. He is not the only person in charge here. He is a messenger for a much bigger organisation.
"And you want me to single handedly prove right now that it was a lab leak?"
Your entire argument assumes this to be true, so yes.
"All I can say is occams razor."
You think that it's more likely there was a string of experiments and cover ups that caused this outbreak rather than a natural mutation, like the last few Sars viruses we have seen? How is that more simple?
"And now these people want to vax the kids and slip up and say "we wont know the side effects until we start injecting them""
Not really a slip up. They did clinical trials, but the difference in population sizes is pretty enormous. Kind of hard to find a 1 in a million side effect when dealing with a few thousand doses.
"people who approve questionable research on animals are now pushong vaccines on 5 year olds. And you honestly dont see the issue there."
Nope.
"Because you dont seem to understand what "busy" means... and no you cant write the same things as quickly or effectively, my phone makes tons if typos."
Busy seems to mean incompetent.
"Do you understand most of what you do is gaslighting?"
Taking your own points to logical conclusions while showing blatant lies and suppositions is not gaslighting. Calling scientists making breakthroughs in an attempt to cure deadly parasites "puppy killers" is also not gaslighting, but it's a really terrible angle to approach this from. I don't think you know what gaslighting is though, it more seems to be something you don't grasp, but throw around in an effort to "win" yet again. It is however factually incorrect.
"You're the metaphorical horse player you not only defends the cruelty of horse racing but also tells people they picked the wrong horses when they win and they just lucky."
So now you're comparing scientific research to cure deadly diseases to....horse racing. False equivalencies are fun aren't they. The last part of your statement makes literally zero sense. It's more pointing out that overall people lose money while gambling, and even if you won this time, over the course of your entire horse betting career you will more than likely lose money. This also means that for you to win, others must lose, leading to your actions perpetuating the suffering of others. Even if you win, things still get worse for everyone but the track in the long run. So I suppose it's a pretty apt description of vaccines and the pandemic I suppose. Not getting vaxed is like betting on horses. I like that, I think I'll keep it.
"You haven't destroyed anything I've said. You just respond in slightly of kilter ways while not quite understanding what I'm saying"
I understand it, and clearly respond to it line by line.
You asked me to find some alternative to animal testing, then admitted there isn't one.
You blame Fauci for things while ignoring that there is an entire agency and dozens of massive professional organisations backing him and what he is saying.
You claim a lab leak with no evidence, then try to use Occam's razor as some explanation, even though a lab leak is infinitely more complex than it naturally occurring, as it has done this dozens of times in the past.
You take quotes out of context while ignoring that the quote about vaxing kids was made by a committee that approved the motion.
You claim questionable research when you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support that.
You are a disgrace.
"how many shots are you going to take?"
Depends on how my immune system holds onto the current antibodies I have. I don't think mine will wane quite so quickly, but we'll see how I get on. Might go for an antibody test next month.
So if you really need anything else spelled out to you as you seem to understand literally nothing, then I'll be happy to do so. If you come out with the same gutter tripe as before then I'm not going to bother. You will have shown yourself to be a lost cause unworthy of mine, or anyone else's time, aside from perhaps others who share your obvious religious levels of belief in blatant propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaunkellison1761
1. Again, still need confirmation on what XXY is.
2. No, it's insufficient to basically everyone. You're the only one proclaiming to be an expert. My examples alone show how shortsighted your view is.
3. Now you're really showing your ignorance, as they are different things. Gender dysphoria is real and has been catalogues for decades. It's not my fault you're behind the times. You're literally arguing against the science while claiming to be an expert.
4. You did, but that's fine we can skirt over that too. And no, it doesn't end up that way the vast majority of the time. What's worse, the conditions I listed are just 3 in a vast array. XXYY, XXXX, XXXXX, XXXY and so on. All of these exist, and yet your original definition seems to only address either XX or XY, which many of these have both of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SeanWinters
"no I'm not. I'm arguing for the bottle of autonomy of the child"
Children, by definition, have to be born to be considered children.
"something that you refuse to Grant because you love dehumanizing people."
Define people. Again, you are removing rights because you don't know the legal definition of a person.
"No, it's exactly the same. Republican states voted to ban slavery, just like we are voting to ban abortion."
Southern states did not however vote to ban slavery. Check out the southern strategy for more details. The states that were pro-slavery are now anti-abortion. Both center around the idea of states rights.
"but you have no right to own a slave and you have no right to abort a child."
We get it, you want to take away rights and are using slavery as a shield from that.
"My ancestors fought a war to end slavery, they won, and by God I will fight you to end abortion."
Doubt. If they lived in the north then sure, but those are the very states that are in favour of women having bodily autonomy.
"Abortions of convenience is the reason why republicans are against abortion in the first place."
You misspelled religion, but okay.
"If you are going to tie in abortions of convenience to guns, you would compare it to mass shootings"
You misunderstand the argument. The point is about rights being taken away because you don't like the way people are using them.
"Slaves were once not legally considered people, they are now."
Right, because of the 13th amendment.
"Children will be considered legally people very soon"
They already are, as children have to be born to be considered children. That's just the definition, both legally and in dictionaries.
"Exactly how they are. All of the evidence shows that at least 80% of abortions are abortions of convenience, given with zero explanation or reasoning other than "i Don't want it"."
Again, you are advocating for the removal of rights because you disagree with the use, see the point about guns. What's worse, giving zero explanation is not the same as not having a reason. Women are not required to give a reason, but can have perfectly valid reasons to do so regardless of any survey.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neighborhoodwatch470
In 2017, the Proud Boys' founder published a video he titled "10 Things I Hate About Jews." In it, he said Jews have a "whiny paranoid fear of Nazis.”
The Proud Boys’ actions belie their disavowals of bigotry: Rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists. They are known for anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Proud Boys have appeared alongside other hate groups at extremist gatherings such as the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Former Proud Boys member Jason Kessler helped organize that event, which brought together a broad coalition of extremists including Neo-Nazis, antisemites and militias. Kessler was expelled from the group after the violence and near-universal condemnation of Charlottesville rallygoers.
Stop kidding yourself. His failure to call a spade a space IS supporting white supremacists and neonazis.
You also skipped over the part about David Duke openly encouraging and supporting Trump and his comments.
You quote doesn't exist. Just Google it and you can see how you got the quote wrong. His actual quote was:
"I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay?"
What he did here, is exactly what you are doing, which is a no true scotsman fallacy. The basic idea is that everyone is a very fine person, unless they do something wrong, in which case they must have always been a neo nazi and they have nothing to do with us. You just keep doing this over and over while ignoring actual neo nazis.
1
-
@neighborhoodwatch470
"He disavowed Duke. Duke also supported Biden."
Not in 2016 or 2020. You're thinking of Richard Spencer, who hates Libertartianism and called the GOP ineffective. He called the GOP incompetent as well, which is hard to argue with.
"Biden has a very racist record. Byrd was Biden's mentor."
And? Trump wasn't mentored by a racist, Trump IS a racist. Biden on the other hand has been on the right side of history for a very long time, including protesting for racial equality in the 70s, as well as supporting fair housing laws and integrated neighbourhoods around the same time. You also seem to forget he was Obama's Vice President.
"Enrique Tarrio"
Weird you pick the guy who turned out to be an FBI informant lol.
"The left have no problems calling minorities that are Trump supporters, or just conservative for that matter, racist"
I agree. You don't have to be white to be racist.
"You know...the 94 crime bill Joe was so proud of."
Which part are you not in favour of? Republicans at the time actually considered the entire bill too soft, and were the reason the 3 strikes rule existed, the cause of the mandatory life sentences and the main race related problems caused by it. It also dedicated a lot of money to prevention, which Biden was in favour of, and Republicans were not. It was at the end of the day a compromise, and trying to claim that Biden is some grand soul author is just silly.
Biden was also voted for by a large Black majority, so try to justify your idiocy all you want, the vast majority do not agree with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jason Mccandless
"umm drone strikes are a good thing"
He says, complaining about a drone strike.
"not sure where Obama came into the conversation"
It was a comparison. Trump more than doubled drone strikes, killing thousands of the civilians you were just complaining about dying.
"trump never made direct decisions on a specific drone strike"
Yes he did, all the time. In fact the strike on the Iranian general was a direct order from Trump. General strike policy is also directed by the president, so if they increase, guess who ordered it.
"the new guy that basically was just a classroom of kids"
Wouldn't be the first time. Again, civilians die in strikes. This is why they aren't a good thing, and getting out of the region is a good thing.
"his poor withdraw that funded terrorist with 85 billion in military weapons equipment"
Not really. Most of it is unusable, and they'll run out of ammo in no time. We also gave this equipment to our allies to cover our escape, but Trump's plan to allow Al Qaeda over a year to make deals with local leaders caused the region to collapse far quicker than anticipated.
"shortly after making the largest border crisis in a hundred years"
The border had been ramping up before Biden even took office. This was inevitable, and a damn site better than separating parents from their kids, some of whom are still not reunited.
"here people from a foreign country are now given executive privilege from his organization to shoot across our borders into US soil"
I'm assuming you mean metaphorically rather than actually shooting, although with America you really never know. People coming across the border are asylum seekers, and it's always been a thing. You should probably also look up the US involvement in the governments and politics of the countries people are now coming in from. Immigrants are also a net positive for the economy, paying in far more than they take out.
"from a foreign nation"
Where else lol.
"I've never done any of that however the fact I'm not defending it with def ears so ya I'll take the moral high ground on that one lol"
No idea what you're even trying to say here. Are you arguing that you're on some sort of moral high ground? Because nothing you said would be considered moral by any reasonable standards.
1
-
@Jason Mccandless
"not complaining about drone strikes at all just the way it was carried out that avoided previous and proper protocol it was completely blind previous strikes were confirmed by visuals"
God you're naive. Visuals like what? Most strikes only have visuals from the drone, which shows very little in the way of who is inside a vehicle.
"yes some civilians died but also a target and anyone including Trump who kills innocent civilians is in fact a murderer this includes Biden and Obama Bush and Clinton as well"
Yet you only whine about it now. Also, the fact Trump openly covered up the strikes is more evidence that they were not hitting targets.
"don't get us started on the negligence of the Clinton's echo don't understand secure emails"
But her emails.
"that particular strike was just hey let's bomb something"
It really wasn't. They, like many strikes, were working on the information available to them.
"see if we hit a terrorist we just gave 86 billion dollars in weapons and equipment to and announce publicly we are working with them as they snatch up child brides in a country our military has occupied for 20 years"
I'm sure you had a better plan for Afghanistan. The fact that it took 20 years to leave is the real travesty.
"come on man I can honestly call Trump an asshole guilty of several bad deeds but dude Biden is truly in your heart just like the rest of your cult"
Hardly. Trump scandals filled the news so often it was impossible to see anything else. Face it, we're back to the days of tan suits and dijon mustard.
"he's also the most recent person to actually condone a foreign people to openly fire into the united states from across the Mexican border"
Still genuinely confused on this claim. Were they shooting at anyone? What was Biden's statement?
"you acct like he's freaking Jesus that's the factual point you are at right now and you can't even deny it"
Maybe if you stopped making things up and criticising things either out of his control or things that really aren't a bid deal then we could actually have a discussion about things that should be criticised.
For example, this lackluster hodge-podge of a covid response needs to be ramped up. We just had a massive surge, and are expecting another January surge like last year, and instead of passing legislation to protect businesses and individuals, they are allowing states to block necessary precautions. This level of control the states are exerting over life-saving measures is a joke.
The splitting of the infrastructure bill was another half measure. While compramise is important, the GOP has spent decades holding the nation hostage until they take power, so they can then go on a spending spree, ruin the economy, and blame Dems. Investment in times of economic downturn is so important, and we're letting congress play games with it.
We need better clean energy programs, including enhanced incentives for individuals and businesses to go solar, and better investments in green energy. Why on god's green earth are we still using coal for energy in this country. It's a disgrace.
Financial markets need tougher restrictions, and zero emphasis has been put on this. The recent rises in housing prices are going to cause some big issues soon if we don't start seeing much tighter regulations.
I also think the pandemic is a perfect opportunity to outline the issues with US healthcare, but lets be honest, you lost me at "compramise".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrusername3438 I'm not insulting you instead of debating you, I'm doing both, you professional nob jockey.
The issue isn't fixating on race, it's understanding the racial history of this country, and understanding how that effects modern society and culture.
Lack of integration is indeed a racial issue. Segregation led to a very specific issue that continues to this day in black communities, and that's a general lack of resource allocation to these communities. This books into generational wealth, so I'll explain that to you so you understand.
First of all, generational wealth is not about every single white person getting an advantage. It's actually a reference to red lining, where incredibly cheap government loans were given to white neighbourhoods to buy homes, and any non-white neighbourhoods, even if it was a single black homeowner or even a white neighbourhood built too close to a black one, were excluded from these programs. This, combined with people having their land straight up stolen due to the color of their skin, caused a massive wealth gap in black communities after WWII.
Now these houses are worth more because of the larger, cheaper loans, and the ability to make changes to those homes with the increased funding. As a result, the property taxes are higher. Property taxes are kept in small zipcode specific areas to help fund different schools, meaning if you came from a more expensive area, your school had more money to buy better supplies and even better teachers. Busing was a program specifically designed to deal with the inequality.
None of this references slavery either, just the reality of segregation, so no idea why you brought that up.
As for your question, no, when adjusted for income black people create the same number of crimes as all other races. They just happen to both be the most poor group, while also being the most heavily policed and worst punished. Sentences against black individuals are far worse than their white counterparts.
They are also shot by police 2.5 times more often per capita that their white counterparts.
1
-
@jakehansen5719 That's a lot of words for someone who clearly knows nothing about drug addiction, mental illness or homelessness.
1. You are partially correct when you say that drug addiction and mental illness are part of the homeless problem, however getting people on their feet with affordable housing is in fact a much larger issue. Plenty of addicts do perfectly well while still living in houses, but when the cheapest apartment is $1,200 and minimum wage is $8 an hour, you have to work far too long just to keep a roof over your head, nevermind food, utilities et cetera. People just stop feeling like it's worthwhile, which is why housing is so important.
2. Your suggestion of arresting drug addicts is laughable. You can't force people to get over their addiction, and you will get far further with voluntary free treatment. Countries with these sorts of programs see vastly superior results. What's worse, they'll be charged for the trouble in the US.
3. Arresting the mentally ill is an even dumber idea, although your solution is pretty hilarious, as your are suggesting we offer free housing in the form of a mental institution. Almost as if housing was the problem all along, crazy I know. The issue however is that, having known several homeless people with mental health issues, all you'll do is give them a fat bill and some meds they can't afford. These are not long-term solution, and housing with provided therapy would do much better.
I agree that the left has an issue when it comes to homelessness. It's called "not in my backyard syndrome" where people know the solutions, but refuse to implement them locally. Low income housing in LA is by far the most prominent example of this. Every single time it gets proposed the locals, who probably all bought their homes 30 years ago and are now worth 20 times what they paid, are scared of losing their newfound wealth to a small property value dip. That does not however make it not the solution, because it is.
Your claim about homeless people getting jobs as temps is just wrong. They have issues with a lack of transportation and sanitation for starters. Nevermind the current worker shortages. Your assumptions rely on there being enough shelters. My city has 1, they even removed all the water fountains, and we have hundreds of homeless.
Your last paragraph is a bit of an authoritarian wet dream, where you can simply arrest people and force them to comply because they are homeless. Why not go the extra mile and just shoot them? Because if you treat them that way you'll just end up with homeless people committing more crimes and being more sneaky about it.
But keep dreaming there Jakey boy. I'm sure you'll figure it out some day.
1
-
@mrusername3438
It means you ride falaces, and no it's a not too uncommon insult where I'm from. I'm sure such a complicated idea hurts your head though. Probably too many sausages in the backdoor shaking your brain around your skull.
Poor white communities don't get left out in the same way that poor black communities do, especially historically. They see transportation routes, convenience stores and more, while black communities are food deserts and are commonly avoided by transportation. They also have worse roads, have industry mixed into their housing due to unfair zoning allocations, and will frequently be the main strip for police to drive through when they feel like arresting someone for looking suspicious.
Gentrification is where white people start buying homes in black neighbourhoods, evicting black people from the area, and then making the area more expensive. It benefits black homeowners, but as discussed a lack of historic access to loans and funds in general in these areas means the people living there are usually renting. Only 44% of black families own their homes.
Yes, redlining was actually specifically a thing after the war, thanks for asking. It didn't end until 1968.
And no, redlining doesn't effect people that came across with existing wealth or after thisntime period, it does however have a very real impact on generational wealth. This combined with blatant theft of property.
The issue is people who were already here, and had their opportunity missed. Upward financial mobility is hard in the US, especially without solid education or resources, as previously discussed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrusername3438
Oh look a source, well let's dig in shall we.
"87% of black people, 90% of latin Americans have some form of confirmed ID"
Which is less than the 95% of white people, a disparity of millions of people. This also doesn't go into the types of ID that specific laws have targeted, as previously mentioned.
"Increased turnout from 2004 to 2008"
This statement both ignores that Obama was the nominee in 2008, and that we were voting after the financial crisis, and that the stats he has on the screen aren't even for those years. Who would have thought the black vote would increase in 2008? He then goes on to claim that this jump means the new laws benefit people of color more, while ignoring external factors.
His response to the US appeals court comments was literally just him going "wrong", which I guess is where you get your arguments from. He even pointed out that black people disproportionately live in large cities and are less likely to have a driver's licence, while ignoring that you actually have to spend money and pass a test to get this for of ID, then makes a joke and ignores the point. Then he talks about states with free ID, not mentioning what is needed to get that ID, the time of day you can get it, the travel requirements for some people et cetera.
Then he goes into illegal aliens voting, which is just a joke. They can't register, they don't vote. He's spreading propaganda. The whole thing is a red herring to lower the ability to vote.
He skips over the other point I mentioned from John Oliver and skips straight to 2 recent supreme court decisions, to which he just responds "is anyone buying this" without actually debunking it.
Uses another clip where the election is secure, but claims it isn't without actual evidence. The claims of security were made by the government, and he just uses old clips that ignore that we secured the election on purpose in between.
Then they compare unnecessary laws designed to reduce total voters to seatbelt laws.
Crowder is a joke, and so are you.
As for the rest of your half-brained comments:
Again the issue is ownership. Black and Latino voters are less likely to have ID, and in some cases the types of ID are even more restrictive.
Then you just spend an entire comment calling me troll because you simply don't deserve a like on your silly comments. Don't be envious, you gotta earn it.
And more lies about voter ID laws that miss federally struck down laws.
I can see why you watch Crowder, you two are peas in a pod.
Shame I can't call you a troll, you're just not smart enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrusername3438
"87% of black people, 90% of latin Americans have some form of confirmed ID"
Which is less than the 95% of white people, a disparity of millions of people. This also doesn't go into the types of ID that specific laws have targeted, as previously mentioned.
"Increased turnout from 2004 to 2008"
This statement both ignores that Obama was the nominee in 2008, and that we were voting after the financial crisis, and that the stats he has on the screen aren't even for those years. Who would have thought the black vote would increase in 2008? He then goes on to claim that this jump means the new laws benefit people of color more, while ignoring external factors.
His response to the US appeals court comments was literally just him going "wrong", which I guess is where you get your arguments from. He even pointed out that black people disproportionately live in large cities and are less likely to have a driver's licence, while ignoring that you actually have to spend money and pass a test to get this for of ID, then makes a joke and ignores the point. Then he talks about states with free ID, not mentioning what is needed to get that ID, the time of day you can get it, the travel requirements for some people et cetera.
Then he goes into illegal aliens voting, which is just a joke. They can't register, they don't vote. He's spreading propaganda. The whole thing is a red herring to lower the ability to vote.
He skips over the other point I mentioned from John Oliver and skips straight to 2 recent supreme court decisions, to which he just responds "is anyone buying this" without actually debunking it.
Uses another clip where the election is secure, but claims it isn't without actual evidence. The claims of security were made by the government, and he just uses old clips that ignore that we secured the election on purpose in between.
Then they compare unnecessary laws designed to reduce total voters to seatbelt laws.
Crowder is a joke, and so are you.
See, I wrote that yesterday. Either counter it or leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rossthomson1958 Vehicle attacks are much harder to actually fulfil. They require a lot of factors that do not exist for guns. First and foremost, the existence of roads, lack of other vehicles, lack of bollards and other vehicle blockers and so on. You need a large group of people out on a road, and even then actually hitting them is usually non-lethal unless you are moving with some speed, and it's much easier to get out of the way of compared to bullets.
Knives are even harder to achieve this kind of mass attack with. From the knives attacks we've seen around the world they are more easily stopped, have less victims, have a lower mortality rate, require a certain level of strength and skill to achieve and the attack is far more personal. You don't get kids going into schools and killing 6 people with a knife.
The idea that someone could go to a hotel room and kill 60 people, injuring over 400 more, with just some knives is silly. The idea that someone could go into a nightclub and kill 49 people with knives is also silly. I'm sure you'll point to the Nice truck attack as an example of how cars can be worse, however the very special set of circumstances for that to happen mean it can only happen on a couple of days of the year. That fact is also overshadowed by both the ease of an event like that using guns on any less populated day, as well as the specific even that happened only months before in Paris, where armed terrorists killed 130 people.
Guns are specifically designed to kill. They are impersonal, fast, long-ranged, accurate and incredibly lethal. That is why attacks using guns are so much worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rossthomson1958
"did you forget that criminal no longer have to fear a gun owner trying to defend his store or home"
Which assumes they have guns in the first place. With much heavier restrictions you both make the risk of being seen with a gun too great, and also make crimes with guns too risky. Sure, it will still happen in isolated incidents, but far far less. You also seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I am saying people should never have guns, but I can go into this more in my points later.
"what countries have stopped Gun ownership or stricter gun laws and has stopped crime"
Nobody is suggesting they stopped all crime, however, Australia put a massive swathe of restrictions of firearms after a mass shooting there. With 35 deaths and 24 more injured they decided enough was enough. In the 26 years since they have seen drops in both violent crime and murder, and have also sharply reduced mass shooting events. Guns are also still legal there, but the types of firearms are restricted. The culture around guns changed.
"no it won’t because your encouraging criminals to get into that business. Just like with petty thieves in Columbia they saw a opportunity to make money with the cartels and they took it"
They're already in that business, but if the market becomes more expensive and many criminals get squeezed out of the sector by both danger and expense then the market will shrink, not expand. What's worse is the cartels you mentioned get their guns from the US.
The US is already many times more lethal than other developed nations, with guns making up around 3/4 of all US murders, and the high murder rate putting you below Kenya Niger and Pakistan.
Countries with restrictions however see much lower murder rates, such as Japan, Germany, Austria, the UK, Australia and more.
Many Americans like to point to Switzerland as an example, however Switzerland has a tonne of reasons for the gun culture being vastly different. They have, for example:
Required military service for all men.
Weapon acquisition licenses only good for single purchases.
Acquaintance and police interviews before the application is granted.
Have to pass exams both theory and practical to carry.
Doctors can inform the police of people with mental health problems should they own or try to own a gun.
If used for sport the gun can only be taken too and from the shooting range, and cannot be loaded during transportation. Ammunition must be separate.
The mixture of high levels of training and the laws surrounding ownership make a country that has a lot of guns infinitely safer than the US.
1
-
@rossthomson1958
"actually Australia has seen an increase in crime from 1980s to 2010s"
Which peaked in the late 90s and decreased from there on, you know, just after the gun restrictions and buybacks which saw drops in violent crimes and suicides. Using the 80s to cover the 90s is just silly.
"the cartels don't fear the law neither do criminals in the US"
You're missing the point, they get their guns from the US. If they didn't fear the law they would try to get their guns from Mexico. Obviously Mexico's restrictions work.
"Many places In America it takes 20-30 mins for a police officer to arrive on scene by that time the home owner is dead and the criminals are gone"
So why are you in favour of giving them guns?
"so it won't be a suprise that you see people take safety in their own hands and buy a gun to protect themselves"
Which is fine, as long as they pass the proper requirements to get a license and register their gun.
"https://youtu.be/gy_wrTVIuqM"
Missing the point 101. How about we stop giving guns to criminals.
"if you want mental health checks that's good but people can always manipulate that, and when that doesn't work they will turn to gun restrictions"
Works everywhere else, and has been shown to be a good way to stop several shootings already where a mental health check would have seen the issue, mainly around school shootings. Even if they can be manipulated, all you are advocating for is better mental health checks. You're too scared to use a better system because it might not work 100% of the time. Well now it works 0% of the time because we don't use them at all.
But keep writing several separate comments of pure ignorance, showing that you are so far from seeing the point that your eyes aren't even open, while complaining about having to read less than a page of words.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arielkarat4338
"pay attention where you have most crimes in the country New York , Washington ,New Jersey ,California , Florida, Illinois...
in this places you have a lot of gun control."
1. You're just naming the places where the most people live. Of course these places have a lot of crimes, that doesn't mean they have high crime rates.
2. You've never been to Florida either have you. The idea that we have a lot of gun restrictions is laughable.
3. Here is a list of states with a higher crime rate than the states you just said:
Louisiana
Missouri
Nevada
Maryland
Arkansas
Alaska
Alabama
Mississippi
And finally Illinois
Or we could look at the violent crime rates:
Alaska
New Mexico
Tennessee
Arkansas
Arizona
Louisiana
Missouri
South Carolina
South Dakota
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
Oklahoma
Alabama
Texas
And finally California
So you were off by a LOT, even naming some states that made it on the crime and violent crime lists above the totally violent states you listed, claiming they are more safe. It's actually comedic how wrong you are.
"more than 3 million US Americans use guns to defend their life every year. "
This stat is pulled from a phone survey, and includes people who open carried and felt safer. Harvard has an entire page on the issue, even showing a study where:
"Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal"
So relying on a self-reporting study where people are openly admitting to committing crimes with guns isn't exactly a starting point.
"and 40,000 crimes with guns including gun accidents."
So who the hell are 3 million people defending themselves from? This number is also only deaths, not injuries, and not armed crimes.
"in 2019 :
1,470 homicides with knives.
350 homicides with rifles.
630 homicides with handguns.
800 homicides with bare hands."
Not according to the FBI. In fact, according to the FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, in 2019 there were 13,927 homicides. Of these homicides by various methods are shown below:
Total firearms: 10,258
Handguns: 6,368
Rifles: 364
Shotguns: 200
Other guns: 45
Firearms, type not states: 3,281
Knives or cutting instruments: 1,476
Personal weapons: 600
So according to the FBI, firearms where the cause of almost 5 times as many homicides as knives and personal weapons combined.
No idea where you go the number 630 homicides with handguns, you probably missed a digit and rounded down by the looks of it.
"I support Ted Cruz"
So the guy that failed to effectively support his states energy grid, and abandoned his people during a blizzard. Why am I not surprised.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arielkarat4338
The truth is that Tucker cannot be taken seriously, as per HIS OWN LAWYERS. Tucker is a lying, white supremist supporting, fearmongering, conspiracy theory spreading, sexist, fascist, racist who finds it all to easy to stoke fears in cult followers.
Also, those videos are all too easy to make. Here:
https://youtu.be/NzDhm808oU4
I mean, there are mostly unprompted and are active rally supporters. Some of these people have been interviewed multiple times, and are consistently stupid while also being incredibly strong supporters. Your video is nothing in comparison, and there are a good 60+ of these.
But sure, lets go with the 9 year old video of people on the street, and not the up to date video of active political supporters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1