PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

What an adorably quaint idea of how the world works for the non silver spooned.

Assets? What the F are assets? Your post makes it seem like you can't grasp the very common reality of living hand to mouth for millions of people.

Nothing like coming out of school with $40k+ in debt and limited job prospects. That'll cure the poor right out of you!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Izzle

I agree, the media is largely to blame.

I do want to point out that the vast majority of people in rural areas (more importantly, areas that have a disproportionate EC advantage) get their information from Fox News. Now you can agree, that at this point, Fox News is basically a propoganda arm for the GOP. How do you convince those guys to seek out alternative news sources? Furthermore, how do you make them understand that hey, news sources are supposed to deliver facts, no matter how uncomfortable they make you feel. How do you avoid them looking at sources that only confirm their bias?

But educate them you say! This is a group of people that would rather home school their kids rather than send them to public schools. And even in public schools, the GOP aims to strip them of funding. Heck, DeVos believes in charter schools rather than public schools!

How can you make such blind people see?

Media literacy is where to begin. This needs to be taught at all levels of education. The ones that watch Fox news are already lost. Fortunately that set is dying out quickly. If you really want to reach them, you need to make it law that media must present the facts and start telling the truth again. They must present balance. Basically reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and then entrench it in law. Tie it to the 1st amendment and protect it as sacred in the function of our democracy.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Under your definition of "poor," no.

Although I submit that your definition of "poor" would apply to no one, because if you can get into a college (and that isn't hard to do) and are "poor" (under the FAFSA metric), student loans are generously given.

Furthermore, your definition completely ignores whatever assets one may have.

Please, please tell me this wasn't a serious post. You're not that disconnected are you?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by New Era

Media literacy is where to begin. This needs to be taught at all levels of education. The ones that watch Fox news are already lost. Fortunately that set is dying out quickly. If you really want to reach them, you need to make it law that media must present the facts and start telling the truth again. They must present balance. Basically reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and then entrench it in law. Tie it to the 1st amendment and protect it as sacred in the function of our democracy.

This sounds a little, umm, dangerous. Like the government dictating the news and what the "truth" is. Sort of a "you are allowed to say whatever you want, as long as you say what we tell you" kind of a deal.

I'm no fan of Fox News or the right wing (or left wing) bull$hit machines, but the gubmint shouldn't be in the business of deciding "truth".

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Assets? What the F are assets? Your post makes it seem like you can't grasp the very common reality of living hand to mouth for millions of people.

Rubecube's proffered definition of "poor" did not take into account what assets, if any, an individual owned.

Yet, along with income, it is the level of assets, or lack thereof, that most people consider when determining whether someone is poor--not whether they have available credit or family or friends available for possible support.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Rubecube's proffered definition of "poor" did not take into account what assets, if any, an individual owned.

Yet, along with income, it is the level of assets, or lack thereof, that most people consider when determining whether someone is poor--not whether they have available credit or family or friends available for possible support.

Well I would've thought someone who was even mildly paying attention could see that the person I was describing in that scenario had no assets, hence why they would be looking to family and friends and credit options for support, but my bad if that wasn't clear enough for you.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

There is a significant difference between not being able to afford healthcare (with the implication being that they cannot afford any healthcare at all) and not being able to afford a small health care premium.

Quite simply, if something is completely free to you, you likely have no concern for its costs or its use, and are completely insulated from the costs that are incurred by others to provide you with the item that you so freely use and consume---all of which leads to excess use of the item by the free user.

Much like you, as someone who has investments that are being taxed, have zero concern for people who despite working 40 hours a week are scraping by just to keep their car running or their heat on, or in a case like Flint, Mi, to afford bottled water to keep your children alive since the actual water provided (that you still have to pay for, lest you lose custody of your children) is toxic.

In this respect, I propose that everyone should be required to pay something for health insurance. Make it a sliding scale based on taxable income, with a minimum payment of $12 due from everyone, perhaps. But to expect--or better yet, demand--that primarily the "rich" should pay the health care bills of "society" is crazy.

You honestly have no grasp of what it's like to be poor, do you? Because if you're poor, even if you're getting food stamps, guess what food stamps don't pay for? Toilet paper, female sanitary items, diapers, etc. So even if you're getting a little bit of help from the government, you're still on the hook to buy many necessary items (and in many states, as a woman, you're also taxed on those sanitary items as tampons/pads and the like are often not considered "necessities" and thus tax exempt).

Being poor is incredibly expensive. If you're wealthy, you can buy a nice house that won't need repairs for years, and when it does need repairs, you can afford to pay a contractor to fix them. You can buy a new, well built car that won't need to be fixed every six months. You can buy high quality clothing that won't break down after a few wears.

For a poor person, you're always just scraping through. You get that piece of crap car that has bad brakes because how else are you getting to your $9/hour job that just barely covers your rent for the month, but you can't buy a house because you don't have any money saved for a down payment, so you have to just stick in the rent cycle. You save a little money aside and then surprise, the alternator in your crap car dies and you need to fix it--don't have a choice, because again, you have to get to your crappy job otherwise you won't be able to keep your too-expensive apartment (because there aren't options for less expensive apartments) and then you'll be homeless. If you have kids, it's a million times harder.

Forgive me if I don't feel too much sympathy for people for whom medicare taxes cut into their luxury items when we have millions of people in this country who flat out cannot afford necessities.

People have, and find, money to purchase and consume the things that they find necessary or enjoyable. If people wish to spend their scarce dollars on consumables in such a way that cause them to be unable to pay for healthcare when they need it later, well, that's on them.

Why should healthcare be available only to those who can afford it? Explain that to me without complaining about Your Tax Dollars and Your Investment Money.

Why don't poor people deserve health care?

If only there was a way people could enhance their skills to obtain a higher-paying job than the one that they currently have....

Oh, you mean going tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into student loan debt? Only to come out of college to find that those better jobs are not available in this economy so you end up working retail or service jobs to pay off that 90 grand in debt you accrued? Which you can't ever bankrupt your way out of? Which they will go after your next of kin for even if you die?

Or, if only there was a way people could move to a place that offered public transportation, thereby negating the need to own a car and pay for all of the costs that go with one....

Cities in the US that have the best public transportation systems are also the cities in the US that have the highest rent figures, so the savings on car payments/gas/insurance would be negated at best, and likely overcome by the rent costs.

I agree that "we as a society" do pay, and should pay, for everyone in the society to obtain healthcare.

I just believe that "we" means "everyone," and not "that "rich" group of people over there..."

Have your medicare tax costs ever prevented you from paying your water bill? From paying your mortgage? From buying food for yourself or your family?

That's what happens if you equally tax poor people for medicare. You cut into the money they need for actual necessities.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Under your definition of "poor," no.

Although I submit that your definition of "poor" would apply to no one, because if you can get into a college (and that isn't hard to do) and are "poor" (under the FAFSA metric), student loans are generously given.

Furthermore, your definition completely ignores whatever assets one may have.

What assets do you think poor people in America have?
If they own a vehicle, it's not an expensive vehicle. They might have an expensive phone--but it was likely either part of a plan from their cell phone provider or it has a lease agreement attached, and in this day and age, you need a phone, period. You cannot apply for jobs without a phone, and rarely can you apply for jobs without internet access, so that phone is a necessity as much as a luxury. Maybe they have an expensive TV--worth a few hundred dollars, perhaps? They probably rent, so that doesn't count.

So you've got a car worth probably <$5000 and a tv worth maybe $500. Oh yeah, that big old $5500 in assets, that'll get you far in life. Especially if they took your advice and went to college via student loans, at which point that <$10K in "assets" wouldn't come near the at least $30-40k in student loan debt that they now carry.

Do you complain that your tax dollars go to paying the salaries/pensions/cadillac insurance plans of your senators and representatives? If not, stop complaining about helping poor people obtain healthcare. Your senators/reps/etc can afford to pay for their own and they don't, you do. If that doesn't bother you, stop whining about poor people who depend on that assistance to survive.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well I would've thought someone who was even mildly paying attention could see that the person I was describing in that scenario had no assets, hence why they would be looking to family and friends and credit options for support, but my bad if that wasn't clear enough for you.

I don't know, I think it's a pretty fair question if the hypothetical poor person in your post who doesn't have enough money to pay their rent had considered liquidating their vacation house in the Hamptons or their summer place on Martha's Vineyard.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This sounds a little, umm, dangerous. Like the government dictating the news and what the "truth" is. Sort of a "you are allowed to say whatever you want, as long as you say what we tell you" kind of a deal.

I'm no fan of Fox News or the right wing (or left wing) bull$hit machines, but the gubmint shouldn't be in the business of deciding "truth".

Yet this is exactly the way the media operated in the United States from 1934 to 1987. This was the golden age of journalism when the powerful were held in check and the media has their highest level of trust with the public. It was the removal of regulations that allowed for the schism in the mass media. The loss of the Fairness Doctrine was what allowed for the birth of Hate Radio and then Fox News. Prior to that, broadcasting with political bias was illegal. After those protections were removed from law, mass media was then allowed to broadcast what they wanted, how they wanted, and with whatever spin or lie they decided to put on information.

How would you feel if you discovered GlobalTV in Calgary buried a story about a carcinogenic hormone in the milk supply because one of their biggest advertisers would be hurt? Would this piss you off? Make you lose confidence in the mass media? That happened in the United States and was only allowed to happen because of deregulation and the loss of the requirement to air stories affecting the public interest. Mass media should not be able to bury a story, especially if it affects the public interest in such a significant way.

This isn’t a strange idea. You are aware that similar protections exist in Canada, the UK, Germany, and other western countries? The public trust is something that should never be messed with. For that reason there needs to be regulations on the behavior of mass media and protections in allowing them to do their job while presenting the facts.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Would a pack of cheese slices count as one asset or could I get truly lucrative and have 24 whole assets?

Dolla Dolla bills ya'll

[troutman]

#DayAgainstDenial Calls on Senate to Reject Trump's Anti-Science Cabinet

Nationwide actions highlight climate denialism of cabinet appointees

http://commondreams.org/news/2017/01...=socialnetwork

#DayAgainstDenial, spearheaded by the climate group 350.org but supported by a coalition of organizations and activists, calls on the U.S. Senate to vote against Trump's nominees to lead his administration, including former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, tapped for secretary of state; former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, nominated for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief; former Texas Governor Rick Perry for secretary of energy; and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) for secretary of the interior.

All four have denied climate change and have ties to the fossil fuel industry, the groups said.

[Izzle]

Lol Chuck Schumer:

(spoilered for size)

NSFW!

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/statu...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Much like you, as someone who has investments that are being taxed, have zero concern for people who despite working 40 hours a week are scraping by just to keep their car running or their heat on, or in a case like Flint, Mi, to afford bottled water to keep your children alive since the actual water provided (that you still have to pay for, lest you lose custody of your children) is toxic.

I'm not sure where you were intending on going with this screed, but no matter...

Originally Posted by wittynickname

You honestly have no grasp of what it's like to be poor, do you?

I have a pretty good idea of what it is like to survive off of peanut butter (and only peanut butter) for months at a time, going to bed at 5:30 under piles of blankets because I couldn't afford the electricity bill to keep the lights (or heat) on at night, and being concerned about whether my car would be reliable enough to get me to school and back for the semester.

Whether all of that qualifies as being "poor" I guess is up to your (and others) own definition of the term.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Being poor is incredibly expensive.

It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

If you're wealthy . . .

* * *

For a poor person . . .

Yeah, but here's the thing: life is about choices. People can choose to be wealthy, or they can choose to make repeatedly bad (or poor) decisions and be (or remain, or become) poor.

You can't afford your "crap car"? Fine, get a bicycle. Or walk.

You can't afford to buy a house? Well, not everyone deserves to have a house. Get over it.

You have a bad job? Well, do something about it--go to school and get a marketable degree in something that pays well.

And spare me the whole "if you have kids" thing, because that one is the most easily avoidable problem of them all, especially if you (i) aren't married; (ii) aren't well-educated; and/or (iii) don't have the money to support yourself.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Forgive me if I don't feel too much sympathy for people for whom medicare taxes cut into their luxury items when we have millions of people in this country who flat out cannot afford necessities.

One commonality that the people who paying the increased Medicare taxes have with the "millions" who allegedly cannot afford necessities is that neither have limitless funds. Yet the government, and others like you, apparently, feel no compunction about further limiting the quantum of funds available to the alleged wealthy in order to support the lives of said "millions."

Have you ever wondered why the decades-long war on poverty has failed to achieve any real success? And do you lecture said "millions" on how they should better spend their limited monies, or do you only reserve such discourses to those whom you believe should pay more to support only the select others that you deem to be deserving of such largesse?

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Why should healthcare be available only to those who can afford it? Explain that to me without complaining about Your Tax Dollars and Your Investment Money.

Why don't poor people deserve health care?

Basic health care should be available to all, and should be paid for by all. More extensive health care treatments should be available to those who have the ability to pay for it and benefit from it.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Oh, you mean going tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into student loan debt? Only to come out of college to find that those better jobs are not available in this economy so you end up working retail or service jobs to pay off that 90 grand in debt you accrued? Which you can't ever bankrupt your way out of? Which they will go after your next of kin for even if you die?

What do you mean by "in this economy"? Unemployment has been steadily trending downward--so much so that the Fed is now raising rates--and hiring is up.

The answer is truly simple: get a marketable degree in something that pays well. And you don't have to go "hundreds of thousands of dollars into student loan debt" to achieve that.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Cities in the US that have the best public transportation systems are also the cities in the US that have the highest rent figures, so the savings on car payments/gas/insurance would be negated at best, and likely overcome by the rent costs.

Then get a bicycle. Or walk.

Or, in the context of getting an education, live on campus!

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Have your medicare tax costs ever prevented you from paying your water bill? From paying your mortgage? From buying food for yourself or your family?

No, no (I do not have a mortgage), and no.

The tax(es) have prevented me from investing additional monies, however--monies that could be used to (i) reduce my need for government services; and/or (ii) employ others (including at least a few of the "millions" who apparently are in need of better employment options).

Originally Posted by wittynickname

That's what happens if you equally tax poor people for medicare. You cut into the money they need for actual necessities.

Poor people need mortgages?!? Who knew?

More seriously, if you tax poor people for the services that they consume, they will become better consumers of the services. Simply giving them "free" money to purchase health insurance (or health care) will do nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

What assets do you think poor people in America have?

Most of them have personal and physical capital--that is, the ability to something with their mind and/or their body. Most of them have a car that is rapidly depreciating and they would likely be better off without. Many of them probably live alone, when they would be better off with a roommate. Many likely have a few hundred dollars in a bank account and must be selective about what they can purchase and consume.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Especially if they took your advice and went to college via student loans, at which point that <$10K in "assets" wouldn't come near the at least $30-40k in student loan debt that they now carry.

Do you honestly think that most college graduates come out of school with a positive net worth? Do you not believe that most college graduates struggle for several years? Do you not believe that there is some value in enduring such a struggle?

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Do you complain that your tax dollars go to paying the salaries/pensions/cadillac insurance plans of your senators and representatives? If not, stop complaining about helping poor people obtain healthcare. Your senators/reps/etc can afford to pay for their own and they don't, you do. If that doesn't bother you, stop whining about poor people who depend on that assistance to survive.

Quite frankly, I complain that my federal income tax bill amounts to two times (or more) of what my family's annual living expenses are. And I will continue to complain of that fact, especially when there are people who seemingly believe that I should pay even more taxes to support people who aren't even paying a dime into the same system.

I don't know how else to say it: Taking money from one group to give to another group will not, on a long-term basis, help the other group achieve any sort of lasting success and it will not help the other group escape poverty. The desire not to be "poor" must come from within, and no amount of money given to the "poor" person from a "wealthy" person will change that.

[AltaGuy]

I gotta give it to you, H.I.

That was a spectacular read, sir. You are unabashedly without empathy. It's breathtaking!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Lol Chuck Schumer:

That's pretty funny.

They could probably do that for the next two years. Republicans are already accusing Democrats of obstructionism.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I gotta give it to you, H.I.

That was a spectacular read, sir. You are unabashedly without empathy. It's breathtaking!

Are you kidding??? I learned so much! I didn't realize that all it took to be wealthy was making the right choice. I didn't realize that to get a great job all you needed was a marketable degree. I didn't realize that if you wanted to go to school you can just go, and live on campus without having major money behind you. I also didn't realize that struggling to survive with massive student debt was an enduring struggle with so much value. Things you don't know.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Under your definition of "poor," no.

Although I submit that your definition of "poor" would apply to no one, because if you can get into a college (and that isn't hard to do) and are "poor" (under the FAFSA metric), student loans are generously given.

Furthermore, your definition completely ignores whatever assets one may have.

I hate to dogpile, but this post exemplifies the very typical flawed Republican mindset when it comes to social services like welfare/healthcare/etc, and how supposedly attainable the American dream is if you just "work hard" because they did it.

They made it, but they refuse to acknowledge just how privileged they were to be gifted the basic infrastructure of proper role models, stable household, steady food source & shelter, car to borrow, family to look after their kids while they work/school...etc. When you take away most that, its a tremendously huge hole to dig yourself out of without some assistance. Nobody accrues assets if you're living hand to mouth just to survive. This is the reality of being poor.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I hate to dogpile, but this post exemplifies the very typical flawed Republican mindset when it comes to social services like welfare/healthcare/etc, and how supposedly attainable the American dream is if you just "work hard" because they did it.

They made it, but they refuse to acknowledge just how privileged they were to be gifted the basic infrastructure of proper role models, stable household, steady food source & shelter, car to borrow, family to look after their kids while they work/school...etc. When you take away most that, its a tremendously huge hole to dig yourself out of without some assistance. Nobody accrues assets if you're living hand to mouth just to survive. This is the reality of being poor.

Throw in some institutionalized racism (sometimes overt) for many groups, and it's like trying to launch yourself to the moon with a matchstick.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by photon

That's pretty funny.

They could probably do that for the next two years. Republicans are already accusing Democrats of obstructionism.

Oh definitely. The GOP is hilarious in that respect.

Man, Jon Stewart shouldn't have retired.

[GreenLantern2814]

Donald Trump is the father of all of Ivanka's children. You know it. I know it. She knows it. He knows it. The internet knows it. I demand a DNA test be released conclusively proving Donald is not the father, otherwise I'll call bull#### because it's obviously the truth. And not just some Maury BS. I want the full long form DNA test. I want to see all his helixes and protein chains, his recessive alleles, and I need it on a 6-ft tall 3D printed model.

#birtherjr