Oh and about Obama having high approval? In the latest Quinnipiac poll [usatoday.com] he's considered the worst of all Presidents post WW II.
Yeah, by about a third of the people, probably those about to vote for Donald Trump. Oh wait...not only is that not the "latest Quinnipiac poll", but it's from fucking 2014.
I'm really starting to notice that you don't bother to look at any of the things you post. Here is the actual latest polling, which has him at a higher approval rating than Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II at the same period in their presidency.
Not only is it part of the deficit [factcheck.org], it's the biggest part of our debt [factcheck.org].
You were on to something with the first part. Yes, starting in 2014, Social Security shortfall has been made up out of the general fund, to the tune of about $75billion/year.
However, the second part of your statement that "it's the biggest part of our debt", indicates that you just didn't read your own link. What that article on factcheck.org actually says is this:
Q: Who are the holders of U.S. debt? A: The biggest are the Social Security trust funds (16 percent), the Federal Reserve banks (12 percent), China (8 percent), Japan (7 percent) and mutual funds including money-market funds (6 percent).
Those aren't the people who are borrowing the money, those are the people who are LENDING THE MONEY. That's what it means to "hold debt".
So, if you do a little arithmetic, if congress was simply to pay back the money that they borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, it would add up to over $2 TRILLION, which would be enough to keep it solvent pretty much for the next 100 years or so.
In summary, not only has Social Security not added any net amount to the debt, but it basically lent the government enough money to pay for George W. Bush's two disastrous wars.
Look, jcr. You know I love you like a brother, but you've got to stop getting your history from grainy YouTube videos of neoliberal Austrian school economists.
As I've said, the only people who think FDR made the Depression worse are people who were born many decades after the Great Depression was over and probably were reading Ayn Rand in their freshman year instead of asking their grandparents what was really going on during that time.
If you have to resort to YouTube alt-history Ayn Rand fan-fiction, there's something wrong with your argument.
3.) Not doing anything to stop rabid outsourcing of both white and blue collar jobs to third world shitholes with no employee protections or decent standard of living. And when those countries start benefiting and wanting a bigger piece of the pie, they pack up and find another shithole.
Try to be more specific. What can the president do, using only executive powers (remember, congress wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire) to "stop rabid outsourcing"?
Should I be celebrating that we're only going an additional half trillion dollars into debt every year now?
When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.
If you found a drug that could cure 3/4 of cancers, you would call that a success, wouldn't you? You still wouldn't celebrate the remaining 1/4 of cancer cases, but you would doubtless say we were moving in the right direction, and you'd almost certainly win a Nobel.
Claiming that Obama's policies had nothing to do with the accelerated income inequality is simply denial.
Give us the top three Obama policies that have led to accelerated income inequality. I'll even help you out by giving you the first one:
1) The Obama Justice Department didn't bring criminal prosecutions against the bankers whose behavior caused the worldwide economic collapse of 2008 (before Obama was president, by the way).
He's the president who's impeded recovery more than anyone since Roosevelt.
You know, it's interesting how the notion, pushed by right-wing and neoliberal websites and think thanks, that FDR impeded the recovery from the Great Depression, didn't really start until all the people who were alive during the Great Depression were safely dead and couldn't laugh in their faces.
Why do you think a president could reverse that trend? Why do you think a president with a congress that won't even give his judge appointments a hearing could possibly reverse that trend?
What executive powers does he have to reverse the trend of trickle-down economics? There were about three months during his first term (after Norm Coleman finally abandoned his effort to block Al Franken from becoming senator from Minnesota, and before Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy) when Obama had a big enough majority to even get legislation debated in congress. Now he chose to use those three months for his failed health care law (which I believe will eventually be seen as a step to single payer). We might agree that he'd have been better served by focusing on income inequality during that time instead of health care.
The other thing that happened is further tweaks to the "official" economic numbers - they are hiding a lot of inflation. If you calculate it the same way they did in the past, the GDP would have grown even slower or shrank in some quarters.
The notion of using a "basket" of goods to make up the CPI (which is what you're talking about when you say "tweaking the numbers") began under Reagan. The formula is the same, but the items chosen for the basket change. For example, if the price of chicken goes up, they put in pork. Certain items like health care and education don't even get counted. It's been this way for 30 years. Even if you correct for these "tweaks" (and if you correct for these tweaks during previous presidents), you still get the longest period of sustained economic and job growth).
And if you bring up "employment participation rates" to me, I'll be glad to give you the tutorial on why that is a completely bogus number that has zero bearing on the health of an economy. I'll have time later for that, if you want.
Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable?
If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.
Remember, the project director for Google cars has now changed the outlook for the "go-anywhere" driverless vehicle from the "end of the decade" to 30 years down the road. And nobody, but nobody can predict technology 30 years down the road. It always ends in disappointment. So your idea of a driverless car going from "door to door" is a fantasy. You might as well be hoping for a flying driverless car with a jetpack and particle beam weapons.
And if your self-driving car can't take you anywhere, then how is it superior to getting on at train (or trolly) station A and getting off at train station X?
Only if you're at least in the top 5%. For everyone else, living paycheck-to-paycheck, the bills are getting higher and the paycheck isn't getting any bigger.
Now you're talking about a trend that's been going on for 30 years, since Ronald Reagan.
Trickle down is gonna trickle down, and we're all trickling down.
But the economy is still growing and still not in a recession.
Maybe you don't remember what happened after 9/11. The economy crashed. Two wars were started. Air travel was halted.
None of the events in the past eight years even come close to that sort of effect on us as a nation. I mean, we're talking about jetliners being flown in skyscrapers and the Pentagon, for chrissake. Are you so mental over a black president that you don't see the vast difference?
It was on the latest 538 swing-state poll of polls, with third-party candidates added in (not generically, but specifically) There was one state where Johnson had like 22% and Trump had 21%. I wish I could find it now. The 538 site has so many polls it's impossible to find anything. I want to say it was Utah. If I find it later, I'll post it here. The only reason I noticed it was that one of the data nerds on Twitter saw it and pointed it out.
no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary
Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.
You may not like Obama's policies. There are a lot of Obama's policies I don't like, but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president, and that he'd cause a huge depression, and that he'd take away all of our guns, and that he'd put people in FEMA camps for being white, he's done pretty well. Most people agree, according to his approval polls. Although, of course, it could just be people realizing that no matter what they think of Obama, he's going to be better than the next president, whoever that might be.
Lower resolution, lower framerate and fewer graphics enhancements.
I hear good things about it but I haven't picked it up, in part because you're stuck with Gritty GrimDark Geralt and can't create your own character. It's why I favor Bethesda and Bioware.
I'm with you on that, although the NPCs having fun at GrimDark Geralt's expense can be pretty funny in Witcher 3. And there are even spots later in the game where Geralt makes fun at himself for being such a poop-fanny.
Since that doesn't answer the GP's question, let me repeat it for him: How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?
You might also ask, "How do self-driving cars work on dirt roads?"
If you don't mind the degraded graphics and performance of the console versions, then I salute you.
Although, to be fair, Saints Row IV was $5 on Steam almost 2 years ago and Witcher 3 has been on sale for $24 on Steam, but if you want it for PC, be prepared to pay the full $50.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, by about a third of the people, probably those about to vote for Donald Trump. Oh wait...not only is that not the "latest Quinnipiac poll", but it's from fucking 2014.
I'm really starting to notice that you don't bother to look at any of the things you post. Here is the actual latest polling, which has him at a higher approval rating than Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II at the same period in their presidency.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
You were on to something with the first part. Yes, starting in 2014, Social Security shortfall has been made up out of the general fund, to the tune of about $75billion/year.
However, the second part of your statement that "it's the biggest part of our debt", indicates that you just didn't read your own link. What that article on factcheck.org actually says is this:
Those aren't the people who are borrowing the money, those are the people who are LENDING THE MONEY. That's what it means to "hold debt".
So, if you do a little arithmetic, if congress was simply to pay back the money that they borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, it would add up to over $2 TRILLION, which would be enough to keep it solvent pretty much for the next 100 years or so.
In summary, not only has Social Security not added any net amount to the debt, but it basically lent the government enough money to pay for George W. Bush's two disastrous wars.
You gotta read these things before you post them.
Social Security isn't part of the deficit.
Look, jcr. You know I love you like a brother, but you've got to stop getting your history from grainy YouTube videos of neoliberal Austrian school economists.
As I've said, the only people who think FDR made the Depression worse are people who were born many decades after the Great Depression was over and probably were reading Ayn Rand in their freshman year instead of asking their grandparents what was really going on during that time.
If you have to resort to YouTube alt-history Ayn Rand fan-fiction, there's something wrong with your argument.
Try to be more specific. What can the president do, using only executive powers (remember, congress wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire) to "stop rabid outsourcing"?
When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.
If you found a drug that could cure 3/4 of cancers, you would call that a success, wouldn't you? You still wouldn't celebrate the remaining 1/4 of cancer cases, but you would doubtless say we were moving in the right direction, and you'd almost certainly win a Nobel.
Give us the top three Obama policies that have led to accelerated income inequality. I'll even help you out by giving you the first one:
1) The Obama Justice Department didn't bring criminal prosecutions against the bankers whose behavior caused the worldwide economic collapse of 2008 (before Obama was president, by the way).
OK, now you go...
Now go see how that national debt is calculated. You might be surprised.
You know, it's interesting how the notion, pushed by right-wing and neoliberal websites and think thanks, that FDR impeded the recovery from the Great Depression, didn't really start until all the people who were alive during the Great Depression were safely dead and couldn't laugh in their faces.
Why do you think a president could reverse that trend? Why do you think a president with a congress that won't even give his judge appointments a hearing could possibly reverse that trend?
What executive powers does he have to reverse the trend of trickle-down economics? There were about three months during his first term (after Norm Coleman finally abandoned his effort to block Al Franken from becoming senator from Minnesota, and before Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy) when Obama had a big enough majority to even get legislation debated in congress. Now he chose to use those three months for his failed health care law (which I believe will eventually be seen as a step to single payer). We might agree that he'd have been better served by focusing on income inequality during that time instead of health care.
The notion of using a "basket" of goods to make up the CPI (which is what you're talking about when you say "tweaking the numbers") began under Reagan. The formula is the same, but the items chosen for the basket change. For example, if the price of chicken goes up, they put in pork. Certain items like health care and education don't even get counted. It's been this way for 30 years. Even if you correct for these "tweaks" (and if you correct for these tweaks during previous presidents), you still get the longest period of sustained economic and job growth).
And if you bring up "employment participation rates" to me, I'll be glad to give you the tutorial on why that is a completely bogus number that has zero bearing on the health of an economy. I'll have time later for that, if you want.
If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.
Remember, the project director for Google cars has now changed the outlook for the "go-anywhere" driverless vehicle from the "end of the decade" to 30 years down the road. And nobody, but nobody can predict technology 30 years down the road. It always ends in disappointment. So your idea of a driverless car going from "door to door" is a fantasy. You might as well be hoping for a flying driverless car with a jetpack and particle beam weapons.
And if your self-driving car can't take you anywhere, then how is it superior to getting on at train (or trolly) station A and getting off at train station X?
Now you're talking about a trend that's been going on for 30 years, since Ronald Reagan.
Trickle down is gonna trickle down, and we're all trickling down.
But the economy is still growing and still not in a recession.
Nah.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/1...
You know that's not true. Nobody wants to take your gun away from you.
Maybe you don't remember what happened after 9/11. The economy crashed. Two wars were started. Air travel was halted.
None of the events in the past eight years even come close to that sort of effect on us as a nation. I mean, we're talking about jetliners being flown in skyscrapers and the Pentagon, for chrissake. Are you so mental over a black president that you don't see the vast difference?
It was on the latest 538 swing-state poll of polls, with third-party candidates added in (not generically, but specifically) There was one state where Johnson had like 22% and Trump had 21%. I wish I could find it now. The 538 site has so many polls it's impossible to find anything. I want to say it was Utah. If I find it later, I'll post it here. The only reason I noticed it was that one of the data nerds on Twitter saw it and pointed it out.
Screw you, you stinking SJW fascist! Why don't you go play Pokemon Go with Hitler?
Did you know there are polls that show Johnson leading Trump in at least one state?
We needed a break from articles about Elon Musk and self-driving cars, which are totally just around the corner.
Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.
You may not like Obama's policies. There are a lot of Obama's policies I don't like, but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president, and that he'd cause a huge depression, and that he'd take away all of our guns, and that he'd put people in FEMA camps for being white, he's done pretty well. Most people agree, according to his approval polls. Although, of course, it could just be people realizing that no matter what they think of Obama, he's going to be better than the next president, whoever that might be.
Lower resolution, lower framerate and fewer graphics enhancements.
I'm with you on that, although the NPCs having fun at GrimDark Geralt's expense can be pretty funny in Witcher 3. And there are even spots later in the game where Geralt makes fun at himself for being such a poop-fanny.
"Help me find my keys and we'll drive out of here!"
You might also ask, "How do self-driving cars work on dirt roads?"
If you don't mind the degraded graphics and performance of the console versions, then I salute you.
Although, to be fair, Saints Row IV was $5 on Steam almost 2 years ago and Witcher 3 has been on sale for $24 on Steam, but if you want it for PC, be prepared to pay the full $50.
I'm sorry, but of course it's true. Most people in the US, in the UK and in the world live in cities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...
http://www.un.org/en/developme...
http://www.census.gov/newsroom...