Instead it was a rant about how women are neurotic.
1. You clearly didn't read the memo. 2. It is factual, rational, and nuanced. 3. Whether or not it's factual is irrelevant to the hypothetical question I posed earlier. I would rather have an employee who makes a rational yet incorrect argument than an employee who hears that argument and has an emotional meltdown.
Most of Obama's debt tally is putting Bush's wars on the actual budge and towing the economy out of the ditch Repubs crashed it into.
Actually most of Bush's debt tally was putting Clinton's social spending on the actual budget and towing the economy out of the ditch Democrats crashed it into.
See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated allegations?
"Profit in banks" is a measly percentage of total wealth. While I'm not certain of the total figures, I'm willing to very that the majority of the wealth held in banks is a split between savings held by verage workers and working capital held by businesses. The uber rich don't hold their wealth in banks; the majority of their wealth is made up of stocks and bonds.
You seem inanely focused on cutting taxes, without bothering to look at expenditures. Why is that?
It's pretty obvious that, if you cut taxes and keep expenditures the same, then the dwpt is going to go up for a number of years. Eventually, of the tax cuts stimulate the economy, they might pay for themselves or even turn a profit. But you're not leaving any room for that effect, and you're not considering expenditures which have been mandated by past governments. Why is that?
Trump did it while removing regulations that ensure you, and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences of the biggest economic crashes in a century.
Well that's awesome; I don't want to suffer the consequences of the biggest crash in centuries, so I'm glad to hear that Trump removed the regulations which guarantee I will. Nice to meet another Trump fan on here!
I've read stacks of history books, that's why I know and understand that the West and the US in particular base most of their values around Judeo-Christian morals and values.
Absolutely. That's why it's illegal in the US to eat pork or shellfish, or to wear mixed fabrics. It's also why we hate money changers and beat the crap out of evangelists who sell goods. Plus we regularly kill witches, beat slaves, and, when a pregnant woman's child is killed we let it go with a payment to her husband.
It also explains why no Christian nation has ever gone to war, or had the death penalty; because the bible says thou shalt not kill.
Judeo-christian morality is absolutely awesome, and I'm so happy we all follow it!!!! The history books all agree.
Apples and oranges... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
I was responding to the original comment which claimed the debt world grow by 1.5 trillion. If, as you say, that's on top of the projected growth, it changes things but not that much. The "projected growth" is an accumulation of programs built by every president before Trump. So how close did Obama come?
Well, depending on how you measure it, he added anywhere between 0.983 trillion and 9 trillion. Let's go with the smallest number. 0.983 in 8 years is 1.22 in 10 years.
In other words, under the best possible circumstances, your glorious Saviour of The United States added just slightly less debt than The Cheeto will. And yet I didn't hear a single democrat whining about Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.
Of course, at this point the "projections" are hypothetical, and Obama's record is set in stone. Nobody knows what the actual result of trump's tax policies will be; they can only guess. But their worst estimates are still in line with the most generous assessments of the previous president.
I'm sure you could, but your entire response thusfar has been weird democrat talking points with no sources or nuance, so why bother? If you "going on" means more of the same, then please, don't bother.
We may disagree on whether or not he's a loser, but I'm glad that we can agree that him fixing America - intentionally or otherwise - would be a good thing. Far too many democrats seem like they would much prefer to have him destroy America so that their own biases can be shown to be right.
Yes, I know you get a different result, but that just makes things even worse for that scenario. The whole point of numbering runways the way we do is to get them as close as possible to the actual bearing while using only two digits. So why the hell would you round 177.4 down to 175, and then turn it into 17, when 177.4 is much closer to 18?
Bullshit. Profit is the only thing which seriously improves the world. Profit if just a meaaure of the compensation you receive above the effort you put into a specific task. Thanks to many generations of increasing profits I make far more money, and have a far better standard of living, than I would have had if I had been born in the 1600s.
Only an idiot would argue that receiving more benefit for less work doesn't improve the world.
If a company is with over 9 figures in a modern-day valuation they should simply be nationalized
Wow... thank you so much. I, as you, am actually happy about the Trump presidency, and am mostly libertarian both fiscally and socially. But I've long struggled to reconcile my position with the question of what to do about corporations accumulating too much power. A large enough corporation can, in some cases, almost become a defacto government, and even failing that they tend to have far too much influence on the market and the public.
I'm not sure that natuonalizing them is the right answer, but, as one one of the people responding to your comment said, a graded income tax for corporations seems like a no-brainer. We already do this for people; why not corporations? If you're a corp making 1 million a year, you get a 15% tax rate; 10 million and its 20%; 100 million you pay 30%, and 1 billion you're at 40%.
The hard part, of course, would be keeping the really large fuckers from just moving their operations overseas to friendlier nations. They do that even now. This would probably have to be a global initiative... but even just starting with the most dominant nation (ie. The USA) would be a great start.
Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side barely controls everything.
FTFY. The republicans hold 52 seats, and the democrats hold 46. The fact that this measure failed to pass is, I think, a good sign. It shows that both parties are willing to cross ranks when they feel that a given measure violates their personal convictions. That's far better than political flunkies just blindly following whatever their party decides.
For the record, the measure failed 50-49, with 5 republicans opposing it, and 5 democrats supporting it.
This outcome has done more to restore my faith in US politics than anything else has in a long time.
You have a long way to go yet especially since you think you're able to judge my driving skills based on what I wrote.
Well, yes, absolutely; if you think that paying attention to Google Maps on your display takes "a lot attention", you absolutely are suffering from some kind of mental impairment, and are not going to be able to deal with the amount of attention that every other aspect of driving requires. I'm not sure how, exactly, that means that I "have a long way to go", buy given your obvious... "issues", I'm not surprised to see you write such things.
Or you can fire the special snowflakes who have a meltdown any time they hear a fact they don't like.
Who's going to be more productive for you as an employee; the "asshole" who has the courage to speak about uncomfortable facts and challenge conventional wisdom with rational analysis, or the emotional disaster whose response to hearing inconvenient facts is to cry and take time off work?
Whites are about 73% of the U.S., going by the 2015 census data, which means that if all things were equal, the chance of both nominees being white would only be about 54%. Then, the chance of that ticket being 2 males, rather than male/female, female/male, or female/female, is only 25%.
Presidential candidates aren't just randomly picked from the general public; they're almost always selected from a list of people with extensive political experience. On the rare occasions when nominees have zero polticial experience they are usually selected based on being accomplished businessmen, highly accomplished military generals, or at the top of some other notable field.
If you were looking at serving politicians, senior military leaders, successful business magnates, and elite academics, you would be looking at a sea of faces which is very white and very male. The current US Senate, for example, is 83% male. It is 96% white. If you were picking your presidential candidate from only those with senatorial experience you would be overwhelmingly likely to end up with a white male candidate. Same goes if you were picking from a list of decorated generals, or highly successful CEOs.
The only way that your math has any relevance is if you select nominees by just picking a random American name out of a hat.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the birdbrains over at PETA are clear evidence that birds can come up with all kinds of theories about their actions and the environment.
If you think that picking people based on race and gender is a good thing, you are definitely a democrat.
If the memo was factual, you'd have a point.
Instead it was a rant about how women are neurotic.
1. You clearly didn't read the memo.
2. It is factual, rational, and nuanced.
3. Whether or not it's factual is irrelevant to the hypothetical question I posed earlier. I would rather have an employee who makes a rational yet incorrect argument than an employee who hears that argument and has an emotional meltdown.
Did you make up all of that on the spot, or did you spend years dreaming it up?
Most of Obama's debt tally is putting Bush's wars on the actual budge and towing the economy out of the ditch Repubs crashed it into.
Actually most of Bush's debt tally was putting Clinton's social spending on the actual budget and towing the economy out of the ditch Democrats crashed it into.
See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated allegations?
"Profit in banks" is a measly percentage of total wealth. While I'm not certain of the total figures, I'm willing to very that the majority of the wealth held in banks is a split between savings held by verage workers and working capital held by businesses. The uber rich don't hold their wealth in banks; the majority of their wealth is made up of stocks and bonds.
You seem inanely focused on cutting taxes, without bothering to look at expenditures. Why is that?
It's pretty obvious that, if you cut taxes and keep expenditures the same, then the dwpt is going to go up for a number of years. Eventually, of the tax cuts stimulate the economy, they might pay for themselves or even turn a profit. But you're not leaving any room for that effect, and you're not considering expenditures which have been mandated by past governments. Why is that?
Trump did it while removing regulations that ensure you, and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences of the biggest economic crashes in a century.
Well that's awesome; I don't want to suffer the consequences of the biggest crash in centuries, so I'm glad to hear that Trump removed the regulations which guarantee I will. Nice to meet another Trump fan on here!
aka fertilizer.
I've read stacks of history books, that's why I know and understand that the West and the US in particular base most of their values around Judeo-Christian morals and values.
Absolutely. That's why it's illegal in the US to eat pork or shellfish, or to wear mixed fabrics. It's also why we hate money changers and beat the crap out of evangelists who sell goods. Plus we regularly kill witches, beat slaves, and, when a pregnant woman's child is killed we let it go with a payment to her husband.
It also explains why no Christian nation has ever gone to war, or had the death penalty; because the bible says thou shalt not kill.
Judeo-christian morality is absolutely awesome, and I'm so happy we all follow it!!!! The history books all agree.
Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
I was responding to the original comment which claimed the debt world grow by 1.5 trillion. If, as you say, that's on top of the projected growth, it changes things but not that much. The "projected growth" is an accumulation of programs built by every president before Trump. So how close did Obama come?
Well, depending on how you measure it, he added anywhere between 0.983 trillion and 9 trillion. Let's go with the smallest number. 0.983 in 8 years is 1.22 in 10 years.
In other words, under the best possible circumstances, your glorious Saviour of The United States added just slightly less debt than The Cheeto will. And yet I didn't hear a single democrat whining about Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.
Of course, at this point the "projections" are hypothetical, and Obama's record is set in stone. Nobody knows what the actual result of trump's tax policies will be; they can only guess. But their worst estimates are still in line with the most generous assessments of the previous president.
That should tell you something.
I could go on
I'm sure you could, but your entire response thusfar has been weird democrat talking points with no sources or nuance, so why bother? If you "going on" means more of the same, then please, don't bother.
I was going to refrain from relying just so I didn't ruin your response, but I decided to comment just to let you to know I agree 100%. Cheers.
lol. Whatever universe you are living in, I want to be there.
We may disagree on whether or not he's a loser, but I'm glad that we can agree that him fixing America - intentionally or otherwise - would be a good thing. Far too many democrats seem like they would much prefer to have him destroy America so that their own biases can be shown to be right.
Yes, I know you get a different result, but that just makes things even worse for that scenario. The whole point of numbering runways the way we do is to get them as close as possible to the actual bearing while using only two digits. So why the hell would you round 177.4 down to 175, and then turn it into 17, when 177.4 is much closer to 18?
Profit doesn't improve the world.
Bullshit. Profit is the only thing which seriously improves the world. Profit if just a meaaure of the compensation you receive above the effort you put into a specific task. Thanks to many generations of increasing profits I make far more money, and have a far better standard of living, than I would have had if I had been born in the 1600s.
Only an idiot would argue that receiving more benefit for less work doesn't improve the world.
Name one. I know for a fact they all got rich by selling products (revolutionary or otherwise) for far above cost
Every oil company in existence.
Volume trumps unit margins.
If a company is with over 9 figures in a modern-day valuation they should simply be nationalized
Wow ... thank you so much. I, as you, am actually happy about the Trump presidency, and am mostly libertarian both fiscally and socially. But I've long struggled to reconcile my position with the question of what to do about corporations accumulating too much power. A large enough corporation can, in some cases, almost become a defacto government, and even failing that they tend to have far too much influence on the market and the public.
I'm not sure that natuonalizing them is the right answer, but, as one one of the people responding to your comment said, a graded income tax for corporations seems like a no-brainer. We already do this for people; why not corporations? If you're a corp making 1 million a year, you get a 15% tax rate; 10 million and its 20%; 100 million you pay 30%, and 1 billion you're at 40%.
The hard part, of course, would be keeping the really large fuckers from just moving their operations overseas to friendlier nations. They do that even now. This would probably have to be a global initiative ... but even just starting with the most dominant nation (ie. The USA) would be a great start.
Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side barely controls everything.
FTFY. The republicans hold 52 seats, and the democrats hold 46. The fact that this measure failed to pass is, I think, a good sign. It shows that both parties are willing to cross ranks when they feel that a given measure violates their personal convictions. That's far better than political flunkies just blindly following whatever their party decides.
For the record, the measure failed 50-49, with 5 republicans opposing it, and 5 democrats supporting it.
This outcome has done more to restore my faith in US politics than anything else has in a long time.
1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.
It's not great, but it's definitely an improvement.
You have a long way to go yet especially since you think you're able to judge my driving skills based on what I wrote.
Well, yes, absolutely; if you think that paying attention to Google Maps on your display takes "a lot attention", you absolutely are suffering from some kind of mental impairment, and are not going to be able to deal with the amount of attention that every other aspect of driving requires. I'm not sure how, exactly, that means that I "have a long way to go", buy given your obvious ... "issues", I'm not surprised to see you write such things.
Creating a welcoming environment for everyone is a laudable, non-political goal.
Making women "feel" like you are "committed to" creating a welcoming environment specifically for them is bullshit politics.
I suspect that you don't see the difference between those two things, but it's pretty glaring.
Or you can fire the special snowflakes who have a meltdown any time they hear a fact they don't like.
Who's going to be more productive for you as an employee; the "asshole" who has the courage to speak about uncomfortable facts and challenge conventional wisdom with rational analysis, or the emotional disaster whose response to hearing inconvenient facts is to cry and take time off work?
Whites are about 73% of the U.S., going by the 2015 census data, which means that if all things were equal, the chance of both nominees being white would only be about 54%. Then, the chance of that ticket being 2 males, rather than male/female, female/male, or female/female, is only 25%.
Presidential candidates aren't just randomly picked from the general public; they're almost always selected from a list of people with extensive political experience. On the rare occasions when nominees have zero polticial experience they are usually selected based on being accomplished businessmen, highly accomplished military generals, or at the top of some other notable field.
If you were looking at serving politicians, senior military leaders, successful business magnates, and elite academics, you would be looking at a sea of faces which is very white and very male. The current US Senate, for example, is 83% male. It is 96% white. If you were picking your presidential candidate from only those with senatorial experience you would be overwhelmingly likely to end up with a white male candidate. Same goes if you were picking from a list of decorated generals, or highly successful CEOs.
The only way that your math has any relevance is if you select nominees by just picking a random American name out of a hat.