Politics Thread

[Xville]

Apparently not. Nor do they understand that healthcare is not a free good no matter how it is paid for. If it isn't paid for by taxes, it is paid for by insurance. But the point is that it costs less per capita no matter how it is paid for in single payer countries (at least some of them). And the outcomes in terms of impact on healthcare are better in single payer systems. This isn't high math here, just facts.

It's facts in some countries as you pointed out...it may not be so in this country if it went to single payer. The outcomes in terms of impact are better? Are you trying to say the services are better? Because that simply isn't so...yes in some countries, no in others.

[X-man]

So your buddy does very well for himself, has option for "free healthcare" yet chooses not to...I thought the healthcare there was so fantastic? So not only is he paying into crappy mandated plan, but supplemental as well because why? He just feels like it, or is it because services suck

I suspect that we all can agree here that healthcare is no different than most other necessities in our society; even though they are necessities, it doesn't mean that everyone has the right to the same quality of care. Assuming that to be the case, the goal in good single payer systems is to guarantee a base level of access to healthcare for everyone regardless of income, pre-existing conditions, etc. Those wanting better access and the means to pay for it, have every right to do so. And so in single payer systems, many people buy better care through supplemental or alternative insurance plans that should also be available. It makes no more sense that we all get the same level of care as it does to say we all should live in the same quality house, or drive the same quality car.

But in our country, without something akin to a single payer or its equivalent, people stay in jobs later than they would otherwise so they can get access to affordable health insurance. They put off retiring until they are 65 and qualify for Medicare. How fucked up is that when we make a decision on when to retire based on access to health insurance?

[X-man]

It's facts in some countries as you pointed out...it may not be so in this country if it went to single payer. The outcomes in terms of impact are better? Are you trying to say the services are better? Because that simply isn't so...yes in some countries, no in others.

Actually we have evidence that it does work in this country. It's called Medicare.

[Xville]

Actually we have evidence that it does work in this country. It's called Medicare.

40 trillion in the red means it is working? thats interesting.

[Xville]

I suspect that we all can agree here that healthcare is no different than most other necessities in our society; even though they are necessities, it doesn't mean that everyone has the right to the same quality of care. Assuming that to be the case, the goal in good single payer systems is to guarantee a base level of access to healthcare for everyone regardless of income, pre-existing conditions, etc. Those wanting better access and the means to pay for it, have every right to do so. And so in single payer systems, many people buy better care through supplemental or alternative insurance plans that should also be available. It makes no more sense that we all get the same level of care as it does to say we all should live in the same quality house, or drive the same quality car.

But in our country, without something akin to a single payer or its equivalent, people stay in jobs later than they would otherwise so they can get access to affordable health insurance. They put off retiring until they are 65 and qualify for Medicare. How fucked up is that when we make a decision on when to retire based on access to health insurance?

So, free market...which is basically what we have now...except in single payer i can pay more taxes and supplemental insurance to receive the same level of care i do now.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

So your buddy does very well for himself, has option for "free healthcare" yet chooses not to...I thought the healthcare there was so fantastic? So not only is he paying into crappy mandated plan, but supplemental as well because why? He just feels like it, or is it because services suck

So again your ignorance of their system shows, you can be on the German system or you can pay for supplemental additional coverage. In my friend's case, he gets a few things like his own room when he or his family are in the hospital. There are a few other differences but they are negligible.

The Germans run a non-profit single payer system. The non-profit sets the price and the entire profit motive for healthcare has been removed.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

For the record, I think we'll ultimately end up with a single payer system. The costs are spiraling out of control and I don't see that stopping without government price controls which would be implemented the easiest with a single payer system where they can tell the ER that they won't pay $50 for an aspirin, $100 for a needle, $500 for a bag of saline that costs less than $1 to make, etc.

I work with someone who lived in both the UK and Canada. Had an ACL tear playing soccer in the UK. Didn't get to see a doc for weeks, but when she did get in, no MRI was allowed and the diagnosis was a slight knee sprain. Ice it and you'll be fine. Got back to the US months later and the knee hadn't gotten any better. Went to a doctor here and was immediately sent for an MRI. Yep, clearly a tear. I guess her experience was the one exception to the rule?

These reports from Canada also seems to disagree with the experiences of your family. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2016
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canadian-medical-tourism_us_5949b405e4b0db570d3778ff

Fraser Institute is a Koch funded group. I go ahead and toss that right in the trash along with my copy of Atlas Shrugged. Your second post is a one off anecdote. I can find millions in the US where treatment was restricted, limited, or bankrupted the patient. My friend got non-hodgkin's lymphoma. He had it detected late and barely survived. His medical debt now isn't manageable. It's not even close. Bankruptcy is his only option.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

So, free market...which is basically what we have now...except in single payer i can pay more taxes and supplemental insurance to receive the same level of care i do now.

Except the free market would contain an intrinsic profit motive, that is the biggest issue with healthcare in the US today. Take that out, and we have a good start to getting things under control.

[X-man]

40 trillion in the red means it is working? thats interesting.

All the data show clearly that Medicare delivers access to healthcare more efficiently than the private sector does in our country. The funding deficit is yet another red herring in this conversation.

[Caf]

All the data show clearly that Medicare delivers access to healthcare more efficiently than the private sector does in our country. The funding deficit is yet another red herring in this conversation.

Yeah I'm beginning to wonder if Xville believes state healthcare should be a money maker.

[paulxu]

Totally anecdotal, but I have many German friends (who moved to the Spartanburg area for textile machinery support decades ago, and then BMW) in my neighborhood and at Rotary.
They to a man think our health care system is nuts.
I know...small sample size.

But their feelings are supported by the data shown above in the chart.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Yeah I'm beginning to wonder if Xville believes state healthcare should be a money maker.

What poster was it before during the Obamacare stuff, Kimcrawford? The profit motive has no business in healthcare.

[Xville]

All the data show clearly that Medicare delivers access to healthcare more efficiently than the private sector does in our country. The funding deficit is yet another red herring in this conversation.

You think a 40 trillion deficit in funding is a red herring? That's interesting...guess the money will just fall from the money tree to fund it.

[Xville]

So again your ignorance of their system shows, you can be on the German system or you can pay for supplemental additional coverage. In my friend's case, he gets a few things like his own room when he or his family are in the hospital. There are a few other differences but they are negligible.

The Germans run a non-profit single payer system. The non-profit sets the price and the entire profit motive for healthcare has been removed.

So essentially free market which is what we have today...except of this was Germany I'd have to pay extra for my own room.

If the services are so great, again why does he pay for supplemental coverage?

So how much does he pay extra? What is his tax rate?

[GoMuskies]

The profit motive has no business in healthcare.

That's a damn fine way to ensure health care is shitty.

[paulxu]

That's a damn fine way to ensure health care is shitty.

But that's exactly what all those other countries have proven wrong. They took it out and got better results.
Because they decided it should be a universal service like police and fire (which have no profit motive...yet).

[Caf]

But that's exactly what all those other countries have proven wrong. They took it out and got better results.
Because they decided it should be a universal service like police and fire (which have no profit motive...yet).

It is necessary to point out that we are leaders in pharmaceutical research and that our current set up is the cause of that.

[scoscox]

Again, better results in some areas. We are vastly superior in specialized care and medical technologies because we haven't abandoned profits. It's not totally black and white. There are definite advantages to each model.

[boozehound]

The problem that you all don't seem to be grasping, is who and how is a single payer health system going to be paid for? Income Taxes, Corporate Taxes, Capital Gains Taxes, Payroll Taxes to Corporations? Somehow, Someway this has to be paid for and again, none of the countries cited have anywhere close to our population not remotely close. Just because it works in some countries in Europe, doesn't mean it would work here.

Medicare has worked well in this country, about 40 trillion in the red at last count by the way.

Medicare is in the Red in a large part because we have basically enacted a single payer system that kicks in when people hit 65 without any offsetting premiums from younger, healthier, people (outside of the Medicare tax, which is relatively minimal at 1.45%). That's not how risk pools work. It's fundamentally unsound mathematically. That's not an opinion - it's a verifiable fact. Even in cases where people have retiree healthcare benefits from a large corporation those benefits typically subordinate to Medicare, further adding to the cost.


In the end, government and thus you and I do. That's on a per incident basis, and not every uninsured person go to the er..so how much of a cost now would it be to basically insure everyone 24/7?

Some on here try to say costs would go down because of the larger pool, that's only the case in a private free market system, not the system we are talking about.

You in for trillions more in federal spending, more corporate taxes, capital gains taxes etc? How do you think wages for workers would look then?

Explain to me using facts, not talking points, how the concept of pooled risk somehow only applies in a private free market system. That is an insane thing to say.

Furthermore - in a version of a 'Medicare for all' type of scenario, let's look at the average American family:

The average American family makes $56K per year. They pay a 1.45% Medicare payroll tax which is $812 per year. Let's assume that they carry health insurance for the family at a cost of $600 per month (which is probably on the low side of average for decent coverage). They are paying $7200 per year in insurance premiums, not including the ubiquitous co-pays and deductibles. So they are paying 12.5% of their income for insurance. You could raise taxes, or simply charge a premium for single-payer healthcare, that would generate a significant amount of the revenue needed to fund it. I'm not even sure how much deficit expansion would be necessary, if any at all. If we want to talk about deficit reduction let's talk about military spending, and reducing some of that while spending more on healthcare and infrastructure.

It's also pretty universally regarded that preventative care reduces costs overall, which single payer would theoretically encourage.



Again, better results in some areas. We are vastly superior in specialized care and medical technologies because we haven't abandoned profits. It's not totally black and white. There are definite advantages to each model.

This is generally how I feel - we can't simply just remove the profit motive from healthcare. It should still exist. I would, however, like to remove the profit the insurance companies (middlemen) make from the equation and use that savings to offset overall healthcare costs. Doctors, hospitals, and drug companies should still be profitable, and significantly so. The other challenge with comparing our outcomes to a lot of European countries is that we are so much unhealthier than they are, which has to have an impact on outcomes.

[scoscox]

This is generally how I feel - we can't simply just remove the profit motive from healthcare. It should still exist. I would, however, like to remove the profit the insurance companies (middlemen) make from the equation and use that savings to offset overall healthcare costs. Doctors, hospitals, and drug companies should still be profitable, and significantly so. The other challenge with comparing our outcomes to a lot of European countries is that we are so much unhealthier than they are, which has to have an impact on outcomes.

Last sentence is very true and is a huge drag on costs as well as outcomes. As for the rest of your point, figuring out how to get the best of both worlds is basically the crux of our current problem. Not easy to do.

[Xville]

Medicare is in the Red in a large part because we have basically enacted a single payer system that kicks in when people hit 65 without any offsetting premiums from younger, healthier, people (outside of the Medicare tax, which is relatively minimal at 1.45%). That's not how risk pools work. It's fundamentally unsound mathematically. That's not an opinion - it's a verifiable fact. Even in cases where people have retiree healthcare benefits from a large corporation those benefits typically subordinate to Medicare, further adding to the cost.



Explain to me using facts, not talking points, how the concept of pooled risk somehow only applies in a private free market system. That is an insane thing to say.

Furthermore - in a version of a 'Medicare for all' type of scenario, let's look at the average American family:

The average American family makes $56K per year. They pay a 1.45% Medicare payroll tax which is $812 per year. Let's assume that they carry health insurance for the family at a cost of $600 per month (which is probably on the low side of average for decent coverage). They are paying $7200 per year in insurance premiums, not including the ubiquitous co-pays and deductibles. So they are paying 12.5% of their income for insurance. You could raise taxes, or simply charge a premium for single-payer healthcare, that would generate a significant amount of the revenue needed to fund it. I'm not even sure how much deficit expansion would be necessary, if any at all. If we want to talk about deficit reduction let's talk about military spending, and reducing some of that while spending more on healthcare and infrastructure.

It's also pretty universally regarded that preventative care reduces costs overall, which single payer would theoretically encourage.




This is generally how I feel - we can't simply just remove the profit motive from healthcare. It should still exist. I would, however, like to remove the profit the insurance companies (middlemen) make from the equation and use that savings to offset overall healthcare costs. Doctors, hospitals, and drug companies should still be profitable, and significantly so. The other challenge with comparing our outcomes to a lot of European countries is that we are so much unhealthier than they are, which has to have an impact on outcomes.

You are forgetting the fact that your job pays a significant portion of your premium, that won't be the case in single payer....better increase that percentage...by a lot.

In regards to the pool statement, we shall see...I'm skeptical when its controlled by one entity.

[Strange Brew]

You think a 40 trillion deficit in funding is a red herring? That's interesting...guess the money will just fall from the money tree to fund it.

Here in Colorado people were all for govt run Colocare until they realized it would require an additional 10% increase in the state income tax. That’s a big price and it failed miserably at the ballot box. Marxist policies sound great until the bill comes and it is spread equally (not really, high earners still pay more in nominal terms) among the persons.

[X-man]

You are forgetting the fact that your job pays a significant portion of your premium, that won't be the case in single payer....better increase that percentage...by a lot.

In regards to the pool statement, we shall see...I'm skeptical when its controlled by one entity.

I'm trying to understand here. Does the fact that "your job pays" mean that the insurance or healthcare covered has no cost? In addition if you understood how elasticities affect cost shares (for taxes, health insurance, etc.) in the labor market works, you would never confuse statutory cost shares with actual cost shares. But more to the point: when you add up the total cost (regardless of who is paying it) of healthcare and health insurance, it is higher in the US on a per capita basis than it is in other countries with single payer systems. End of story.

[boozehound]

You are forgetting the fact that your job pays a significant portion of your premium, that won't be the case in single payer....better increase that percentage...by a lot.

In regards to the pool statement, we shall see...I'm skeptical when its controlled by one entity.

Somebody is still paying it, it's not free money. Imagine the burden that the small business owner bears in terms of healthcare costs? Do you know any small business owners that provide insurance for their employees? It's very difficult to do, and generally you are one major medical event for one of your employees away from not being able to provide insurance. It is a significant built-in disadvantage for small business in terms of both profit and the labor market.

I'm not sure that we ever will 'see' even though the majority of Americans at this point support some form of single payer. The insurance industry is massive and spends a tremendous amount of money lobbying to ensure that it doesn't happen.


I'm trying to understand here. Does the fact that "your job pays" mean that the insurance or healthcare covered has no cost? In addition if you understood how elasticities affect cost shares (for taxes, health insurance, etc.) in the labor market works, you would never confuse statutory cost shares with actual cost shares. But more to the point: when you add up the total cost (regardless of who is paying it) of healthcare and health insurance, it is higher in the US on a per capita basis than it is in other countries with single payer systems. End of story.

Yes. Somebody is paying. If you add the employer subsidy in to the mix I (and my employer on my behalf) am paying closer to $1400 per month, or $16,800 per year. That is a LOT of money to the average American family making ~$56K per year.

[Xville]

I'm trying to understand here. Does the fact that "your job pays" mean that the insurance or healthcare covered has no cost? In addition if you understood how elasticities affect cost shares (for taxes, health insurance, etc.) in the labor market works, you would never confuse statutory cost shares with actual cost shares. But more to the point: when you add up the total cost (regardless of who is paying it) of healthcare and health insurance, it is higher in the US on a per capita basis than it is in other countries with single payer systems. End of story.

My point was that in single payer, your job isnt going to cover half or heck I have been offered some jobs recently where my medical, dental would be covered 100%. That wont happen in single payer...you will be fully responsible for it thru taxes or otherwise.

Boozehound was saying avg American pays 12.5% of income, my contention is that it could be more than that in single payer due to job not paying for a portion of it etc. No one knows this one way or the other until it's actually enacted.


Your last statement...yeah I'm not arguing that and never did but way to put the hammer down with your "end of story." My contention is that just because it works in other countries doesnt mean it would work here..period end of story.

[Xville]

Somebody is still paying it, it's not free money. Imagine the burden that the small business owner bears in terms of healthcare costs? Do you know any small business owners that provide insurance for their employees? It's very difficult to do, and generally you are one major medical event for one of your employees away from not being able to provide insurance. It is a significant built-in disadvantage for small business in terms of both profit and the labor market.

I'm not sure that we ever will 'see' even though the majority of Americans at this point support some form of single payer. The insurance industry is massive and spends a tremendous amount of money lobbying to ensure that it doesn't happen.



Yes. Somebody is paying. If you add the employer subsidy in to the mix I (and my employer on my behalf) am paying closer to $1400 per month, or $16,800 per year. That is a LOT of money to the average American family making ~$56K per year.

I agree with most of this. My father is a small business owner and has been for 30+ years and is a veterinarian so you can imagine the insurance he pays not only to his employees but jaut to practice medicine. I do think the whole notion of a job paying for half of insurance was just an attempt to put a band aid on something. We do that a crap ton in our country, just like tuition reimbursement companies are now paying for again.

I'm not against single payer necessarily, I'm just not convinced that it would work here or cost less just because it works in Iceland.

[paulxu]

My point was that in single payer, your job isnt going to cover half or heck I have been offered some jobs recently where my medical, dental would be covered 100%. That wont happen in single payer...you will be fully responsible for it thru taxes or otherwise.

You need to study how universal health care works in some of the European countries. The employers very often do pay into the system on behalf of their employees. In other areas, the amount your employer pays in the US for health is in the employee's wage, so it is paid in taxes.

That's why "per capita" is so important to understand. Their health systems deliver good car to ALL their citizens, and about 1/2 the total cost of ours. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is covering everyone provides primary care to reduce emergency room costs for uninsured who wait late for diagnosis and treatment.

[boozehound]

I agree with most of this. My father is a small business owner and has been for 30+ years and is a veterinarian so you can imagine the insurance he pays not only to his employees but jaut to practice medicine. I do think the whole notion of a job paying for half of insurance was just an attempt to put a band aid on something. We do that a crap ton in our country, just like tuition reimbursement companies are now paying for again.

I'm not against single payer necessarily, I'm just not convinced that it would work here or cost less just because it works in Iceland.

Oh, I'm far from convinced that single payer will work here. The devil will be in the details and execution. I also don't think the current system really 'works', and is on an unsustainable trajectory. I think moving toward single payer is probably our least worst option.

[Lloyd Braun]

Yesterday

Let me ask you a question....you really want the government running healthcare? Even if you say yes, which in my opinion is freaking nuts....


Today

I agree with most of this.

I'm not against single payer....

Starting to come around!!! :)

[Xville]

Yesterday



Today


Starting to come around!!! :)


Not against the idea of it, just like how a lot of things sound great on paper but once action takes place, it isn't what you thought.

[boozehound]

Not against the idea of it, just like how a lot of things sound great on paper but once action takes place, it isn't what you thought.

Agreed, but if you continue the current trends in the healthcare costs and extrapolate them out 10-20 years you get some very scary numbers in terms of cost of insurance and cost of care. The current system is not sustainable either.

[Xville]

Agreed, but if you continue the current trends in the healthcare costs and extrapolate them out 10-20 years you get some very scary numbers in terms of cost of insurance and cost of care. The current system is not sustainable either.

Agreed...I know that something needs to be done, I just don't know what, and I'm not convinced Single payer is the way to go in this country nor that it would cost less.

[Xville]

You need to study how universal health care works in some of the European countries. The employers very often do pay into the system on behalf of their employees. In other areas, the amount your employer pays in the US for health is in the employee's wage, so it is paid in taxes.

That's why "per capita" is so important to understand. Their health systems deliver good car to ALL their citizens, and about 1/2 the total cost of ours. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is covering everyone provides primary care to reduce emergency room costs for uninsured who wait late for diagnosis and treatment.

So, that sucks for small business owners...how is that better? Again, just because other countries who have single payer costs 1/2 of what ours does, does not mean that if we went to single payer it would cost 1/2. There are many other factors involved such as the fact that we are one of the most unhealthy developed countries on the planet.

[X-man]

Agreed...I know that something needs to be done, I just don't know what, and I'm not convinced Single payer is the way to go in this country nor that it would cost less.

This in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, both in other countries and in ours as evidenced by Medicare.

[94GRAD]

Somebody is still paying it, it's not free money. Imagine the burden that the small business owner bears in terms of healthcare costs? Do you know any small business owners that provide insurance for their employees? It's very difficult to do, and generally you are one major medical event for one of your employees away from not being able to provide insurance. It is a significant built-in disadvantage for small business in terms of both profit and the labor market.

I'm not sure that we ever will 'see' even though the majority of Americans at this point support some form of single payer. The insurance industry is massive and spends a tremendous amount of money lobbying to ensure that it doesn't happen.



Yes. Somebody is paying. If you add the employer subsidy in to the mix I (and my employer on my behalf) am paying closer to $1400 per month, or $16,800 per year. That is a LOT of money to the average American family making ~$56K per year.

I know one. We cover 100% of our fulltime employee that aren't part of ownership.

[boozehound]

So, that sucks for small business owners...how is that better? Again, just because other countries who have single payer costs 1/2 of what ours does, does not mean that if we went to single payer it would cost 1/2. There are many other factors involved such as the fact that we are one of the most unhealthy developed countries on the planet.

How does that suck for small business owners? I would think it would be better, as they would pay much less that it would currently cost. I guess it would force small businesses that don't provide healthcare to pay into the care, but they should anyways, and if structured as a payroll tax low-wage small businesses would pay in at a rate commensurate with their wages.

Our current system is expensive, and relies heavily on luck. Most American families would be financial devastated by someone having cancer, for example, even if they have decent insurance.

[boozehound]

I know one. We cover 100% of our fulltime employee that aren't part of ownership.

That is extremely commendable, particularly in the service industry.

[XU 87]

Somebody is still paying it, it's not free money. Imagine the burden that the small business owner bears in terms of healthcare costs? Do you know any small business owners that provide insurance for their employees?

My firm.

[xudash]

An actual letter letter from an Oregon resident sent to his Senator:


Dear Senator Wyden,

As a native Oregonian and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien , and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for only three of the last five years.

I know a good deal when I see one , and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone else figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year ; so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine.

Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family , because we paid heavy taxes in 2014 and 2015.
Additionally, as an illegal alien , I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures that I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me, given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) as well as copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
(hoping to reach 'illegal alien' status , rather than be just a bonafide citizen of the USA)

[X-man]

An actual letter letter from an Oregon resident sent to his Senator:


Dear Senator Wyden,

As a native Oregonian and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien , and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for only three of the last five years.

I know a good deal when I see one , and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone else figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year ; so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine.

Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family , because we paid heavy taxes in 2014 and 2015.
Additionally, as an illegal alien , I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures that I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me, given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) as well as copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
(hoping to reach 'illegal alien' status , rather than be just a bonafide citizen of the USA)

Ah, the summer off season. Does this post have anything to do with the current conversation on the cost of healthcare in the US, and whether a single payer system could do a more efficient job delivering such care to the general population?

[XU 87]

Ah, the summer off season. Does this post have anything to do with the current conversation on the cost of healthcare in the US, and whether a single payer system could do a more efficient job delivering such care to the general population?

This thread is titled "Politics Thread".

And the answer to your question is, "No".

[boozehound]

My firm.

So I think some people misunderstood that quote. I know of many small businesses that provide health insurance to their employees. I have 3 relatives who own small to mid-sized businesses and two of the three provide healthcare. The other says it's too expensive. Healthcare insurances costs are a major concern for them, as I imagine they are for your firm. If they aren't, you likely have been lucky.

[xudash]

Ah, the summer off season. Does this post have anything to do with the current conversation on the cost of healthcare in the US, and whether a single payer system could do a more efficient job delivering such care to the general population?

Gee, what do you think:

Additionally, as an illegal alien , I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures that I could save almost $10,000 a year. "

It's all over the map, with respect to estimated impacts, but the cost of healthcare in the United States is affected by illegal immigration:

https://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+immigration+cost+on+health+care&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=illegal+aliens+cost+on+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.10952j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

As of 2017, FAIR estimates the number of illegal aliens in the US to be approximately 12.5 million. Obviously, some number of them waltz into emergency rooms when they need medical assistance and they do so without paying for services received.

The guy wrote a funny letter to his left-leaning senator. So I shared it here.

[Strange Brew]

I agree with most of this. My father is a small business owner and has been for 30+ years and is a veterinarian so you can imagine the insurance he pays not only to his employees but jaut to practice medicine. I do think the whole notion of a job paying for half of insurance was just an attempt to put a band aid on something. We do that a crap ton in our country, just like tuition reimbursement companies are now paying for again.

I'm not against single payer necessarily, I'm just not convinced that it would work here or cost less just because it works in Iceland.

Thank you progressive and internment legend FDR...

Edit: thank you Olympic swimmer Teddy K for HMOs..

[Caf]

Gee, what do you think:

Additionally, as an illegal alien , I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures that I could save almost $10,000 a year. "

It's all over the map, with respect to estimated impacts, but the cost of healthcare in the United States is affected by illegal immigration:

https://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+immigration+cost+on+health+care&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=illegal+aliens+cost+on+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.10952j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

As of 2017, FAIR estimates the number of illegal aliens in the US to be approximately 12.5 million. Obviously, some number of them waltz into emergency rooms when they need medical assistance and they do so without paying for services received.

The guy wrote a funny letter to his left-leaning senator. So I shared it here.

What are the possible solutions to this? Make them citizens and collect taxes from those with incomes to offset costs? Let people die in emergency rooms? Round them all up, deport them, and completely fortify the border? Which seems most equitable?

I get what this guy is saying, but it comes from a standpoint that completely disregards the reality of the situation.

[X-man]

This thread is titled "Politics Thread".

And the answer to your question is, "No".

Yet another post from 87 that completely misses the point.

[xudash]

What are the possible solutions to this? Make them citizens and collect taxes from those with incomes to offset costs? Let people die in emergency rooms? Round them all up, deport them, and completely fortify the border? Which seems most equitable?

I get what this guy is saying, but it comes from a standpoint that completely disregards the reality of the situation.

A solution that will appear cold hearted to some and practical to others:

Fortify the border now while concurrently beginning the process of determining who is worthy and wanting of citizenship and who is here to become a Democrat.

Make them citizens and collect taxes from those with incomes to offset costs? For those that have been here and have integrated themselves into society in a positive way and who want to be Americans: yes. Create a path for legalized citizenship and bring welcome them in.

Let people die in emergency rooms? Can't support that idea. That would be inhumane. The only exception is if they come in from gang related activity.

Round them all up, deport them, and completely fortify the border? Round-up anyone and everyone who came here illegally and who otherwise are incapable, for whatever reason, of contributing to American society. They get sent back. Round-up MS-13 members, line them up against a wall, and shoot them very, very dead.

Which seems most equitable? I don't see it as a matter of choices. I see it as a matter of policies that award good people who want a fair chance, but who came here under desperate circumstances in any way they could to build a better life. I suspect that the vast majority of illegal immigrants fall into this camp, at least with respect to intentions.

I see it as a situation that invites continued lunacy if we don't secure our borders, to protect against the flow of drugs, terrorist cells, and other evils. It's simply stupid to allow this to continue to go on unchecked. It's been going on this way for too long.

I write that, knowing that a "wall" will slow, but not completely stop some of these problems. There's a lot of badness in the world. How 'bout a Fresca!

[Lloyd Braun]

A solution that will appear cold hearted to some and practical to others:

Fortify the border now while concurrently beginning the process of determining who is worthy and wanting of citizenship and who is here to become a Democrat.

Make them citizens and collect taxes from those with incomes to offset costs? For those that have been here and have integrated themselves into society in a positive way and who want to be Americans: yes. Create a path for legalized citizenship and bring welcome them in.

Let people die in emergency rooms? Can't support that idea. That would be inhumane. The only exception is if they come in from gang related activity.

Round them all up, deport them, and completely fortify the border? Round-up anyone and everyone who came here illegally and who otherwise are incapable, for whatever reason, of contributing to American society. They get sent back. Round-up MS-13 members, line them up against a wall, and shoot them very, very dead.

Which seems most equitable? I don't see it as a matter of choices. I see it as a matter of policies that award good people who want a fair chance, but who came here under desperate circumstances in any way they could to build a better life. I suspect that the vast majority of illegal immigrants fall into this camp, at least with respect to intentions.

I see it as a situation that invites continued lunacy if we don't secure our borders, to protect against the flow of drugs, terrorist cells, and other evils. It's simply stupid to allow this to continue to go on unchecked. It's been going on this way for too long.

I write that, knowing that a "wall" will slow, but not completely stop some of these problems. There's a lot of badness in the world. How 'bout a Fresca!

I had chills reading this. Not the good kind....

If one can get past the point that it’s inhumane to let people die in an ER yet “line them up and shoot them very, very dead” to create any logical response to this, most of your “solutions” are incredibly subjective. Which we know doesn’t work with any law if it is left for interpretation and case by case basis.

[Strange Brew]

I had chills reading this. Not the good kind....

If one can get past the point that it’s inhumane to let people die in an ER yet “line them up and shoot them very, very dead” to create any logical response to this, most of your “solutions” are incredibly subjective. Which we know doesn’t work with any law if it is left for interpretation and case by case basis.

Ha! This from a person that is pro infanticode.

[Lloyd Braun]

Ha! This from a person that is pro infanticode.

I am all for coding infants.

[xudash]

I had chills reading this. Not the good kind....

If one can get past the point that it’s inhumane to let people die in an ER yet “line them up and shoot them very, very dead” to create any logical response to this, most of your “solutions” are incredibly subjective. Which we know doesn’t work with any law if it is left for interpretation and case by case basis.

Was this a serious response?

I'm talking about confirmed acts of gang violence. Irrefutable acts of violence and drug and human trafficking. Subjective? Give me a break.

[Lloyd Braun]

Was this a serious response?

I'm talking about confirmed acts of gang violence. Irrefutable acts of violence and drug and human trafficking. Subjective? Give me a break.

That is fantasy land... by “confirmed acts” do you mean having gone through due process, and courts? How do you confirm this? Even if it is confirmed acts of violence, the answer is to execute them via firing squad?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Didn’t the pope just change the church’s stance on the death penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xudash]

That is fantasy land... by “confirmed acts” do you mean having gone through due process, and courts? How do you confirm this? Even if it is confirmed acts of violence, the answer is to execute them via firing squad?

Sufficiently confirmed.

Only if the executions are televised live.

[bjf123]

Back on medical care in the other countries with socialized medicine. In those countries, can you sue the doctor or hospital for malpractice and possibly be awarded the equivalent of millions of dollars? If so, does the government provide the insurance or pay the award, or is it a cost paid by the provider?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xudash]

Didn’t the pope just change the church’s stance on the death penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes he did.

So, let's get serious. What do liberals want to do about the problem?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Yes he did.

So, let's get serious. What do liberals want to do about the problem?

What problem? Crime is at an all time low and that includes mass shootings which are at an all time high. What exactly does that say about American culture?

I am a tad surprised there is no chatter here about the first Manafort trial.

[XU 87]

What problem? Crime is at an all time low

Are you arguing that crime isn't a problem in this country?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

are you arguing that crime is less of a problem in this country?

fyp

[XU 87]

fyp

You fixed nothing. Crime is a serious, serious problem in this country. If you can't or won't acknowledge that, then so much for trying to even discussing this issue.

[GoMuskies]

I'm with these flaming liberals when it comes to criminal justice issues. Criminal Justice Libbies (https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/)

[UCGRAD4X]

I'm with these flaming liberals when it comes to criminal justice issues. Criminal Justice Libbies (https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/)

Overcriminalization: Has anyone who has shipped a lobster in the wrong container actually spent time in prison? This is likely a health and food safety issue which could potentially cause harm, maybe seriously. Tell someone who has been seriously harmed (or family member) that there should not be consequences, particularly if this is a repeated violation.

Due Process: The government must uphold the law. Duh! Tell that to sanctuary cities.

Second Chance: While I agree with this in general and should be examined, however, if an employer does not want to employ someone who has a criminal record, I don't think they should be forced to, and I don't think it should be illegal for them to ask.

Policy Practices: "Trust and Collaboration" - tell that to those who protect criminals and refuse to help police in their investigation into serious crimes and to those who oppose police, sometimes with force, and those who engage in criminal behavior in the name of justice, without impunity. I agree asset forfeiture needs to be reformed. I'm unclear on the whole "bad incentives" for "overuse" of "military equipment and tactics" bit. Police should not engage in activities outside of the bounds of legal and established procedure and training, and should be punished for it. I also agree with the last statement that police should be police and do what police are supposed to do. An argument can be made that much of what is proposed (without a lot of specifics) would actually make it more difficult for police to "focus resources on preventing and solving serious crime" as well as other crimes.

Sentencing: I agree with this very general statement. However, we have to consider situations such as repeat offenders, what other crimes a co-committed and the potential harm to others.

Overall, I do agree that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. I'm just not sure how much what is said here seriously adds to the discussion. Admittedly, the discussion should be had and I suppose this is might serve as a starting place. It does makes a good point or two, but mostly unrealistic and raises more questions than potential solutions.

[GoMuskies]

Ban the box doesn't prevent you from asking about criminal records. It just delays the process until after the decision has been made to offer a job (subject to background check, etc.). Thus, those with criminal records aren't kicked out of the process automatically at the beginning and get their chance to make a positive impression before the discussion about the criminal record comes up.

The point is that 90% of people in jail are getting out some day. If we don't focus on making it better for them when they get out, it's going to continue to be a bad deal for all of us.

Further, we need less non-violent criminals in prison, and we need them to not be there for so long. We need to follow the lead of Texas, which has dramatically decreased its prison population. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/07/05/crime-incarceration-rates-falling-texas-closes-record-number-lock-ups

[ArizonaXUGrad]

My point had nothing to do with justice reform which is certainly something that needs to happen. My point is that there are bigger priorities right now that need addressing.

#1 should be shrinking the wealth gap by increasing the taxes on the rich. Then using those funds appropriately and not on massive defense spending. I think we lack focus in this country to really identify the problem and the fix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Criminal justice reform yes.

Tax hikes no.

Generally my view on the wealth gap is "Who gives a fuck?". If the poor are 10% better off, but the ultra rich get 100% better off at the same time, that's a million times better than the poor treading water while the ultra rich go backwards. The best example we have of income equality these days is Venezuela. And fuck that.

[Xville]

My point had nothing to do with justice reform which is certainly something that needs to happen. My point is that there are bigger priorities right now that need addressing.

#1 should be shrinking the wealth gap by increasing the taxes on the rich. Then using those funds appropriately and not on massive defense spending. I think we lack focus in this country to really identify the problem and the fix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Taxing the rich even more than they already are is pure crazy. They are doing enough and should not be "penalized" even more for being successful.

Let's instead take care of the real problem which is the immense amount of people living here for absolutely free and taking advantage of our systems.

[XU 87]

My point had nothing to do with justice reform which is certainly something that needs to happen. My point is that there are bigger priorities right now that need addressing.

#1 should be shrinking the wealth gap by increasing the taxes on the rich. Then using those funds appropriately and not on massive defense spending. I think we lack focus in this country to really identify the problem and the fix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Let's make the poor wealthier by making the rich poorer". Classic liberal dogma that has no basis in reality. (See, for example, Venezuela).

[Caf]

Criminal justice reform yes.

Tax hikes no.

Generally my view on the wealth gap is "Who gives a fuck?". If the poor are 10% better off, but the ultra rich get 100% better off at the same time, that's a million times better than the poor treading water while the ultra rich go backwards. The best example we have of income equality these days is Venezuela. And fuck that.

The poor do

[GoMuskies]

The poor do

So do you think the poor would rather (a) their lot improve but at a slower rate than the rich, or (b) their lot stay steady but the rich become less well off?

[X-man]

So do you think the poor would rather (a) their lot improve but at a slower rate than the rich, or (b) their lot stay steady but the rich become less well off?

Are those the only options? What about having the poor improve at a faster rate than the rich so that the wealth gap gets smaller and returns to a level more like much of our experience in the US over the last 100 years?

[XU 87]

The poor do


So you're saying given the choice of 1) the poor can be 5% better off if the rich are 0% better off or 2) the poor can be 15% better off but the rich will be 25% better off, the poor will choose option 1. Nicolas Maduro loves that logic.

[GoMuskies]

Are those the only options? What about having the poor improve at a faster rate than the rich so that the wealth gap gets smaller and returns to a level more like much of our experience in the US over the last 100 years?

That's okay with me, too. I think it would be great. But a fixation with a "wealth gap" is strange to me. So long as I am better off, why do I give a fuck if someone else is getting better off at a faster rate? Envy is ugly.

[Xville]

Are those the only options? What about having the poor improve at a faster rate than the rich so that the wealth gap gets smaller and returns to a level more like much of our experience in the US over the last 100 years?

That's cool but in reality I think if we actually try to fix the problem rather than putting a bandaid on it, it's going to take a little while. There needs to be a severe cultural change in the "poor" communities and that may take a generation or two. Just redistributing money is not the answer.

[Caf]

So do you think the poor would rather (a) their lot improve but at a slower rate than the rich, or (b) their lot stay steady but the rich become less well off?

I'm a big believer in Piketty's view of inequality. It's all about the proportion. The poor don't necessarily want the rich to fall, they just want the growth of wealth/capital to be proportional to the growth of economic output or income from labor. So it's not about identical income like Venezuela, it's about proportional income growth.

[Caf]

That's okay with me, too. I think it would be great. But a fixation with a "wealth gap" is strange to me. So long as I am better off, why do I give a fuck if someone else is getting better off at a faster rate? Envy is ugly.

I honestly don't look at the gap as a goal to be achieved, just more of an indicator. If it's really high there's an indication that the system is not equitable and it will fracture as discontent grows.

[GoMuskies]

And I think as long as poor people can eat, get medical care, have shelter, and afford iPhones and Netflix, we're all going to be just fine. Access to Season 2 of Ozark really is a universal human right these days.

[X-man]

That's okay with me, too. I think it would be great. But a fixation with a "wealth gap" is strange to me. So long as I am better off, why do I give a fuck if someone else is getting better off at a faster rate? Envy is ugly.

There is a whole lot of research that demonstrates that the wealth gap does in fact matter to all kinds of people. in fact even among the wealthier among us, evidence suggests that we are less satisfied with our situation when there are others doing better (and living better) than we do. See Robert Frank's work at Cornell, for example: Link to his work: https://www.johnson.cornell.edu/people/faculty/rhf3/rhf3_vitae.pdf.

[GoMuskies]

Yes, I get that people are generally irrational and stupid. I'd prefer not to have irrational, stupid policy to cater to that.

[Caf]

So you're saying given the choice of 1) the poor can be 5% better off if the rich are 0% better off or 2) the poor can be 15% better off but the rich will be 25% better off, the poor will choose option 1. Nicolas Maduro loves that logic.

Of course he does. It's exactly how people like him come to power and it's exactly the danger of inequality I'm talking about.

[Caf]

Yes, I get that people are generally irrational and stupid. I'd prefer not to have irrational, stupid policy to cater to that.

Haha I think we're all saying the same things differently. The inequality gap matters as much as the population says it does.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

So long as I am better off, why do I give a fuck if someone else is getting better off at a faster rate? Envy is ugly.

Way to think of your fellow man there. The best way to shore up the economy is to have it's largest economic segment earning, living, saving, and spending. Right now it's earning, living, and spending and not doing a whole lot of saving. When this generation hits 60+ and is unable to retire, things are going to get dicey. The job market for 60+ is a nightmare even if you are skilled. This is a massive problem that has come about because of income inequality the likes the first world hasn't seen outside of Russia. It is a system problem not a bootstrap problem.

[GoMuskies]

Way to think of your fellow man there.

You obviously are misunderstanding what I've said if this is your response.

[bigdiggins]

Way to think of your fellow man there. The best way to shore up the economy is to have it's largest economic segment earning, living, saving, and spending. Right now it's earning, living, and spending and not doing a whole lot of saving. When this generation hits 60+ and is unable to retire, things are going to get dicey. The job market for 60+ is a nightmare even if you are skilled. This is a massive problem that has come about because of income inequality the likes the first world hasn't seen outside of Russia. It is a system problem not a bootstrap problem.

Perhaps "what" people are spending on is why they can't save. Too many have an instant gratification issue that affects their saving habits.

[Caf]

Perhaps "what" people are spending on is why they can't save. Too many have an instant gratification issue that affects their saving habits.

Anything at all to back this up or are you just spit balling here?

[bigdiggins]

Anything at all to back this up or are you just spit balling here?

The story ArizonaXU posted about his circle being too good for a used car. People on public assistance that have nicer cell phones than people in my circle who have jobs and save for retirement.

[Xville]

I'll go further...out of college I made little...very little for the first few years. I found out you can live on little, save, and still have just a tiny bit of discretionary money...now of course there is a point where that's not possible but for the people arizona is talking about (middle class), it's very doable. Yeah you have to be wise about your spending, but that's not the economy's fault.

Now I make a pretty good living but I have a wife starting her own business and two young kids at home. So I still have to watch our spending considerably, and we probably spend more than we should on stupid stuff.

If you are 60+ and been in the workforce for 40 years and you cant retire, your lifestyle has been the problem.

[noteggs]

Wow looked at this thread this morning and people were discussing incarceration reform a subject most people agree needs to be changed. After a brief timeout to work, came back to a subject that people on different sides of the isle normally disagree - the have and have nots... IMHO, don’t think we’ll change many minds. However, always fun reading.

[Xville]

And yes I know what I said was anecdotal. However my point is that I see it all the time...people outspend what they make due to keeping up with the Jones' and that's up and down the income line. If you are 60+ and cant retire what the hell have you been doing the past 40 years? Probably outspending your means, outside of a catastrophic event.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The story ArizonaXU posted about his circle being too good for a used car. People on public assistance that have nicer cell phones than people in my circle who have jobs and save for retirement.

Yeah, there are absolutely people who live in areas where a used car isn't recommended much less reasonable. Extreme heat, cold, ghetto, whatever the circumstance, it's not recommended to have a used vehicle where the reliability is questioned because of safety issues. If you can't see that, I won't convince you. Stay in your own bubble of life.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Anything at all to back this up or are you just spit balling here?

Pure recitation of talking points that all one has to do to save for their future is not spend all their money. In a vacuum that works, but in the real world people have necessary bills that must be paid and sometimes those bills don't equal their pay and is sometimes more than their pay. You get to a point where you have to choose something you need but must now live without. There are times where healthcare costs drive families to massive amounts of debt. But hey, its all their choice right? More bootstraps all around, that should cover it.

I was fortunate, academic/music scholarships covered my tuition. I was able to work during college and get parental help to cover the room/board/books. I left with zero debt and have live pretty well. I, however, know a lot of people who weren't so fortunate.

The state of this economy is perilous because it's being propped up by a rise in consumer debt. You want a really good economy, it needs to be propped up by the middle class spending that isn't accompanied by the acquisition of debt.

[Xville]

Pure recitation of talking points that all one has to do to save for their future is not spend all their money. In a vacuum that works, but in the real world people have necessary bills that must be paid and sometimes those bills don't equal their pay and is sometimes more than their pay. You get to a point where you have to choose something you need but must now live without. There are times where healthcare costs drive families to massive amounts of debt. But hey, its all their choice right? More bootstraps all around, that should cover it.

I was fortunate, academic/music scholarships covered my tuition. I was able to work during college and get parental help to cover the room/board/books. I left with zero debt and have live pretty well. I, however, know a lot of people who weren't so fortunate.

The state of this economy is perilous because it's being propped up by a rise in consumer debt. You want a really good economy, it needs to be propped up by the middle class spending that isn't accompanied by the acquisition of debt.

So in your mind, the same people who spend outside their means, are going to suddenly stop doing that when they make more money and save? Nope.

For the most part, you can control what you spend and how...mortgage/rent, type of car, food, discretionary spending, phone, internet/cable etc etc.

Middle class people are not going without needs like shelter, food etc. To try to even make that argument is silly

[Caf]

So in your mind, the same people who spend outside their means, are going to suddenly stop doing that when they make more money and save? Nope.

For the most part, you can control what you spend and how...mortgage/rent, type of car, food, discretionary spending, phone, internet/cable etc etc.

Middle class people are not going without needs like shelter, food etc. To try to even make that argument is silly

Really impressive to see how quickly a discussion can go from arguing about the significance of the inequality gap into pure hyperbole.

[noteggs]

I too was fortunate while going to school. Got scholarship, loans, and worked two jobs to pay for tuition and a terrible apartment. One job to pay bills and other to prepare myself for my career. However, it took me a few extra years to get through. This opportunity taught me the importance of hard work and self sufficiency.

Also, I’m fortunate because l live in the best capitalistic society (yes...not perfect) in the world and went to a great school in X. These two things allowed me to do things I never thought possible and this is coming from a guy who’s dad had a great career working at Ford on an assembly line then to a mid-level management job without a college degree. (love that man)

These experiences also taught me to take care of the less fortunate as I got breaks from wonderful people along the way...

Bottom line, I have much more confidence in the individual human spirit than I do with the government picking winners and losers.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Really impressive to see how quickly a discussion can go from arguing about the significance of the inequality gap into pure hyperbole.

I love it, this thread was slowing down so it needed a kick start. Yes, you can control those costs that Xville mentions, however when you are the minimum and they exceed your salary you have problems. There are somethings you can't control that kill your finances...layoff, sickness, accidents, disaster at the home, etc.

Take a new teacher in Phoenix, they would typically have 2-300 bucks in student loans already out of the gate. They make only $38k per year, well now after the small raise they received. After pulling out taxes/retirement/healthcare, a teacher is largely left with a bit under $2k/month. XVille, your job should you choose to accept it, choose expenses wisely and tell me how you live off of that. In Phoenix, a $600/month apartment is a slum (guys are slinging outside) and an $800/month is at least clean but in a high crime area.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I too was fortunate while going to school. Got scholarship, loans, and worked two jobs to pay for tuition and a terrible apartment. One job to pay bills and other to prepare myself for my career. However, it took me a few extra years to get through. This opportunity taught me the importance of hard work and self sufficiency.

Also, I’m fortunate because l live in the best capitalistic society (yes...not perfect) in the world and went to a great school in X. These two things allowed me to do things I never thought possible and this is coming from a guy who’s dad had a great career working at Ford on an assembly line then to a mid-level management job without a college degree. (love that man)

These experiences also taught me to take care of the less fortunate as I got breaks from wonderful people along the way...

Bottom line, I have much more confidence in the individual human spirit than I do with the government picking winners and losers.

Good point, but how would correctly taxing the upper 1% and using those dollars to fully fund schools/healthcare for all/etc. be the government picking winners and losers.

Disclosure, I don't think we are nearly the best capitalist society. We leave far too many people behind. The best in the world, do their best for all their citizens.

[Xville]

I love it, this thread was slowing down so it needed a kick start. Yes, you can control those costs that Xville mentions, however when you are the minimum and they exceed your salary you have problems. There are somethings you can't control that kill your finances...layoff, sickness, accidents, disaster at the home, etc.

Take a new teacher in Phoenix, they would typically have 2-300 bucks in student loans already out of the gate. They make only $38k per year, well now after the small raise they received. After pulling out taxes/retirement/healthcare, a teacher is largely left with a bit under $2k/month. XVille, your job should you choose to accept it, choose expenses wisely and tell me how you live off of that. In Phoenix, a $600/month apartment is a slum (guys are slinging outside) and an $800/month is at least clean but in a high crime area.

Pretty easy

I'll take a 800 apartment or I'll get a roommate and save a couple hundred dollars per month
Utilities 150
Used car for 300/month
Grocery 300 for one person is more than sufficient
Internet/cable/phone 150
Car insurance probably 50

That leaves about 250...maybe I have loans, maybe I dont but either way I have money left over even if you take into account gas and miscellaneous. When I graduated, i put 50/month in a Roth..every little but helps. I also lived with 3 other guys to save money so that may be an option as well...then even as someone making 35k a year, you can save couple hundred dollars a month.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Pretty easy

I'll take a 800 apartment or I'll get a roommate and save a couple hundred dollars per month
Utilities 150
Used car for 300/month
Grocery 300 for one person is more than sufficient
Internet/cable/phone 150
Car insurance probably 50

That leaves about 250...maybe I have loans, maybe I dont but either way I have money left over even if you take into account gas and miscellaneous. When I graduated, i put 50/month in a Roth..every little but helps. I also lived with 3 other guys to save money so that may be an option as well...then even as someone making 35k a year, you can save couple hundred dollars a month.

Car insurance for a 22 year old is $50? Lol, you are being hilarious or you are insulting me. In Phoenix, it's $150. You forgot student loans and gas, I mean you plan on driving that used car right? $150 for all utilities is off, it's more like $200 at least especially in Phoenix summer for water and electricity ($200 is conservative). Lol on the internet/cable/phone being $150 also (more like just the phone and internet or cable not both). Look if you are going to play the game play fair. Don't just come in unrealistically low and say everything is hunky dory.

My wife is a teacher and I know a lot of her friends. You don't just find a roommate. You have to vet roommates.

[Xville]

Car insurance for a 22 year old is $50? Lol, you are being hilarious or you are insulting me. In Phoenix, it's $150. You forgot student loans and gas, I mean you plan on driving that used car right? $150 for all utilities is off, it's more like $200 at least especially in Phoenix summer for water and electricity ($200 is conservative). Lol on the internet/cable/phone being $150 also (more like just the phone and internet or cable not both). Look if you are going to play the game play fair. Don't just come in unrealistically low and say everything is hunky dory.

My wife is a teacher and I know a lot of her friends. You don't just find a roommate. You have to vet roommates.

It's difficult as a 22 year old to find roommates? Do you not have any friends? Come on that's a stretch.

Get a roommate and probably saving 400 in expenses and it goes up from there with more roommate you get.

Or if you choose to live single, then take public transit.

Life is about choices...decided to spend 80- 100k in college to make 38k a year with not much upside in a state that pays one of the worst salaries in the country. Admirable yes, but dont cry about salary when you knew what you were signing up for...and even still you can make it work and save money.

[bigdiggins]

Good point, but how would correctly taxing the upper 1% and using those dollars to fully fund schools/healthcare for all/etc. be the government picking winners and losers.

Disclosure, I don't think we are nearly the best capitalist society. We leave far too many people behind. The best in the world, do their best for all their citizens.

Pure recitation of talking points. No rich people work hard and earn anything. They all just get it off of everyone else's hard work. Ignore the fact that the top 1% pay 39% of income taxes and the top 10% pay 71% they aren't paying their fare share. Ignore that the US pays more as a % of GDP than most countries and that starting teacher salaries are 20% higher than the average OECD nation (and are the highest portion of the aforementioned GDP spend) we aren't spending enough to be the best in the world. Spend more of other people's money is always the answer.

A quick review of Phoenix public schools reveals their calendar is less than 10 months. 38k equates to 45k. Granted part time or seasonal work wouldnt pay the same but it's still easily 40+. Of course in the freezing cold ghetto of Phoenix there's probably no part time or seasonal work available to help make car payments.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Pure recitation of talking points. No rich people work hard and earn anything. They all just get it off of everyone else's hard work. Ignore the fact that the top 1% pay 39% of income taxes and the top 10% pay 71% they aren't paying their fare share. Ignore that the US pays more as a % of GDP than most countries and that starting teacher salaries are 20% higher than the average OECD nation (and are the highest portion of the aforementioned GDP spend) we aren't spending enough to be the best in the world. Spend more of other people's money is always the answer.

A quick review of Phoenix public schools reveals their calendar is less than 10 months. 38k equates to 45k. Granted part time or seasonal work wouldnt pay the same but it's still easily 40+. Of course in the freezing cold ghetto of Phoenix there's probably no part time or seasonal work available to help make car payments.

On your tax item, again if this is such a great plan then why are we only better then Russia in first world income disparity. Why do we have massive poverty? Why do we have an indentured servitude system with student loans?

Second item, so are you saying nobody in Arizona should be teachers? If they can’t make money teaching we shouldn’t have any? It’s their fault for becoming a teacher. It’s not just teaching, it’s all jobs that make 40k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xville]

On your tax item, again if this is such a great plan then why are we only better then Russia in first world income disparity. Why do we have massive poverty? Why do we have an indentured servitude system with student loans?

Second item, so are you saying nobody in Arizona should be teachers? If they can’t make money teaching we shouldn’t have any? It’s their fault for becoming a teacher. It’s not just teaching, it’s all jobs that make 40k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nm

[bigdiggins]

On your tax item, again if this is such a great plan then why are we only better then Russia in first world income disparity. Why do we have massive poverty? Why do we have an indentured servitude system with student loans?

Second item, so are you saying nobody in Arizona should be teachers? If they can’t make money teaching we shouldn’t have any? It’s their fault for becoming a teacher. It’s not just teaching, it’s all jobs that make 40k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm saying in your early 20s if you can't make ends meet on $40k you are an idiot that doesn't know how to budget.

[Xville]

On your tax item, again if this is such a great plan then why are we only better then Russia in first world income disparity. Why do we have massive poverty? Why do we have an indentured servitude system with student loans?

Second item, so are you saying nobody in Arizona should be teachers? If they can’t make money teaching we shouldn’t have any? It’s their fault for becoming a teacher. It’s not just teaching, it’s all jobs that make 40k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite frankly, taking a job in which you make 40k with limited upside is a choice. Its admirable if you want to be a grade school teacher, but you knew what you were getting yourself into when you made that career choice, so excuse me if I'm not going to feel sorry for you. It is still possible to live on that amount of money.

There are plenty of jobs in which you could save that student loan debt and make 40k at the age of 18 and make upwards of 100k+ mid to late career. Plumbing, Electricians, Truck Drivers, UPS, FedEx etc are all in very high demand and they all pay well after a few years of service...you just have to be willing to work your tail off at the beginning.

[Juice]

Quite frankly, taking a job in which you make 40k with limited upside is a choice. Its admirable if you want to be a grade school teacher, but you knew what you were getting yourself into when you made that career choice, so excuse me if I'm not going to feel sorry for you. It is still possible to live on that amount of money.

There are plenty of jobs in which you could save that student loan debt and make 40k at the age of 18 and make upwards of 100k+ mid to late career. Plumbing, Electricians, Truck Drivers, UPS, FedEx etc are all in very high demand and they all pay well after a few years of service...you just have to be willing to work your tail off at the beginning.

Also:
1) Many if not all teaching jobs offer some/partial loan forgiveness after a certain amount of time being a teacher.
2) Teachers gets raises based on service time very easily. Their time at 40k is short lived.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Quite frankly, taking a job in which you make 40k with limited upside is a choice. Its admirable if you want to be a grade school teacher, but you knew what you were getting yourself into when you made that career choice, so excuse me if I'm not going to feel sorry for you. It is still possible to live on that amount of money.

There are plenty of jobs in which you could save that student loan debt and make 40k at the age of 18 and make upwards of 100k+ mid to late career. Plumbing, Electricians, Truck Drivers, UPS, FedEx etc are all in very high demand and they all pay well after a few years of service...you just have to be willing to work your tail off at the beginning.

Those jobs exist and your choice argument is tired and just stupid. Teachers are a societal necessity. They also are unable to live on their own.

40k to diggins works in some cities but not in Phoenix. Are we on this board so short sighted that we don’t see the world has changed. I bought a house at 23 on 36k but that was 19 years ago. That was 19 years of inflation and wage stagnation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[94GRAD]

Sen. Warren's plan to redistribute wealth if a company is too successful.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/elizabeth-warren-plan-nationalize-everything-woos-hard-left/

[GoMuskies]

Thanks for the reminder to get started on moving all my assets to Singapore. Just in case.

[Xville]

Those jobs exist and your choice argument is tired and just stupid. Teachers are a societal necessity. They also are unable to live on their own.

40k to diggins works in some cities but not in Phoenix. Are we on this board so short sighted that we don’t see the world has changed. I bought a house at 23 on 36k but that was 19 years ago. That was 19 years of inflation and wage stagnation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In your liberal redistribution of wealth opinion, yes it is. However, it is where most people live...actual reality. Stop talking about how hard it is to be a teacher....hell you get a freaking pension and health benefits when you retire paid minimally by yourself and mostly from us the taxpayers.....talk about a tired and stupid concept.

I agree teachers are a societal necessity but what does that have to do with anything? I also have grade school teacher friends and they somehow live on their own. So don't tell me that's not possible...its bs.

[xudash]

Sen. Warren's plan to redistribute wealth if a company is too successful.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/elizabeth-warren-plan-nationalize-everything-woos-hard-left/

Seriously, she needs to leave the United States.

[Juice]

Seriously, she needs to leave the United States.

But "her people" were here first.

[Xville]

wow she should go hang out in Venezuela...she'd love it there.

[XUOWNSUC]

But "her people" were here first.

Lol - thanks for making me spit out my drink in laughter.

[ChicagoX]

40k to diggins works in some cities but not in Phoenix. Are we on this board so short sighted that we don’t see the world has changed. I bought a house at 23 on 36k but that was 19 years ago. That was 19 years of inflation and wage stagnation.

This is why I think that minimum wage should be tied to cost of living. A $15 minimum wage would be devastating to rural businesses, but if you have it reflect living costs in each area, it would be far more beneficial, get more people off the government dole, and not hurt business in those areas where there is a lower cost of living.

[GoMuskies]

This is why I think that minimum wage should be tied to cost of living. A $15 minimum wage would be devastating to rural businesses, but if you have it reflect living costs in each area, it would be far more beneficial, get more people off the government dole, and not hurt business in those areas where there is a lower cost of living.

I think there should be a federal minimum wage of about $10.50 with automatic annual increases tied to CPI. And then individual states and cities should be (and are) free to do whatever they want to move it higher in their particular areas.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

This is why I think that minimum wage should be tied to cost of living. A $15 minimum wage would be devastating to rural businesses, but if you have it reflect living costs in each area, it would be far more beneficial, get more people off the government dole, and not hurt business in those areas where there is a lower cost of living.

That is a damn good idea. For Xville, find me a city to work in that has a lower cost of living that Phoenix has. For a top 15 population city, the COL is very reasonable. $40k does not cut here and hasn't cut it here for about a decade. The world moved past that salary, companies still pay it.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Sen. Warren's plan to redistribute wealth if a company is too successful.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/elizabeth-warren-plan-nationalize-everything-woos-hard-left/

"The federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards, the details of internal corporate governance, compensation practices, personnel policies, and much more. Naturally, their political activities would be restricted, too" This is a quote from your posted article in the national review just for citation.

I want to know what the "much more" is. Basically, her plan seems to be an attempt to reel in sky rocketing executive compensation packages that are unique to the USA. There are other a few countries that exceed 100-1 but the USA is well over 300-1. How many on this chat board are aware how much we pay board members of corporations and what they actually do? Google is your friend here.

[GoMuskies]

Board members don't generally make a whole lot for their service on a board.

Warren is a fucking nut.

[xudash]

Lol - thanks for making me spit out my drink in laughter.

Yes. Public reps in addition to the green dot already provided.

[xudash]

"The federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards, the details of internal corporate governance, compensation practices, personnel policies, and much more. Naturally, their political activities would be restricted, too" This is a quote from your posted article in the national review just for citation.

I want to know what the "much more" is. Basically, her plan seems to be an attempt to reel in sky rocketing executive compensation packages that are unique to the USA. There are other a few countries that exceed 100-1 but the USA is well over 300-1. How many on this chat board are aware how much we pay board members of corporations and what they actually do? Google is your friend here.

I actually agree that executive compensation is totally out of whack, especially for a corporate steward of a well established corporation, versus a Bezos or Jobs who created fundamental new ways of doing business / developing products. Someone who ascends the corporate ladder to take the helm of a Fortune 50 that has been around for a long time cannot do it without a strong management team around them, as well obviously as a solid workforce.

For that matter, Wall Street compensation is mentally checked out as well, and has been for a long time.

In a perfect world, in a very different period of time, had Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Frick, et al been more compassionate, had they valued the human resource more - that wasn't going to happen in that era, unfortunately - we wouldn't have unions today.

All that aside, Warren is a buffoon. It is amazing that people like Pelozi and Warren rose to visible positions. They truly are remarkably stupid people.

[GoMuskies]

Warren isn't stupid. Not even close. Just nuts. Smart and nuts is a dangerous combination.

[XU 87]

Warren isn't stupid. Not even close. Just nuts. Smart and nuts is a dangerous combination.

She may be book smart. She just has no common sense.

[Mrs. Garrett]

Warren isn't stupid. Not even close. Just nuts. Smart and nuts is a dangerous combination.

Well the combination of stupid and nuts we have now is even worse.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Board members don't generally make a whole lot for their service on a board.

Warren is a fucking nut.

Define not a whole lot.

[GoMuskies]

Well the combination of stupid and nuts we have now is even worse.

I'm not sure it's worse. It's not good, but I'm not sure it's worse. If someone is nuts, I generally prefer them to be stupid. They're generally less dangerous that way.

[paulxu]

Well the combination of stupid and nuts we have now is even worse.

Good point.

[GoMuskies]

Define not a whole lot.

Here is the portion on director compensation from my largest shareholding from the latest proxy statement I could find. A company solidly withing the Fortune 500.

The annual retainer for non-employee directors is $260,000, $155,000 of which is paid in the form of deferred stock units and $105,000 of which may, at the election of each director, be paid in cash or in deferred stock units. In addition, the chairman of our board of directors receives an incremental retainer of $165,000, $82,500 of which is paid in the form of deferred stock units and $82,500 of which may, at the election of the chairman, be paid in cash or in deferred stock units. This incremental retainer results in a total annual retainer of $425,000 for the chairman of our board of directors. The chair of the audit committee was paid an additional annual retainer of $20,000, the chair of the compensation committee was paid an additional annual retainer of $15,000, and the chair of each of the nominating/corporate governance committee and the corporate development and technology advisory committee was paid an additional annual retainer of $10,000. Meeting fees are not paid in respect of the first seven meetings of the board of directors or of any individual committee. Non-employee directors receive $2,000 for each board of directors meeting attended and $1,500 for each committee meeting attended beginning with the eighth meeting of the board of directors or any individual committee, as applicable. Meeting fees and the additional annual retainer may, at the election of each director, be paid in cash, deferred, or paid in deferred stock units. Directors who are employees of the company or any of our subsidiaries receive no remuneration for services as a director.

[Caf]

Here is the portion on director compensation from my largest shareholding from the latest proxy statement I could find. A company solidly withing the Fortune 500.

The annual retainer for non-employee directors is $260,000, $155,000 of which is paid in the form of deferred stock units and $105,000 of which may, at the election of each director, be paid in cash or in deferred stock units. In addition, the chairman of our board of directors receives an incremental retainer of $165,000, $82,500 of which is paid in the form of deferred stock units and $82,500 of which may, at the election of the chairman, be paid in cash or in deferred stock units. This incremental retainer results in a total annual retainer of $425,000 for the chairman of our board of directors. The chair of the audit committee was paid an additional annual retainer of $20,000, the chair of the compensation committee was paid an additional annual retainer of $15,000, and the chair of each of the nominating/corporate governance committee and the corporate development and technology advisory committee was paid an additional annual retainer of $10,000. Meeting fees are not paid in respect of the first seven meetings of the board of directors or of any individual committee. Non-employee directors receive $2,000 for each board of directors meeting attended and $1,500 for each committee meeting attended beginning with the eighth meeting of the board of directors or any individual committee, as applicable. Meeting fees and the additional annual retainer may, at the election of each director, be paid in cash, deferred, or paid in deferred stock units. Directors who are employees of the company or any of our subsidiaries receive no remuneration for services as a director.

Corporate boards are an absolute joke in this country. I oversaw proxy voting for a bit, and can tell you first hand that boards rarely ever add any value or guidance to a company. Especially when the CEO is the chairman and even worse when the CEO is the founder.

That being said they are paid in-line with the market demand for their time. It is pennies compared to their "day job" remuneration and fractions of pennies compared to CEOs. Of course, many spend less than 24 hours a year on board work.

[Mrs. Garrett]

I'm not sure it's worse. It's not good, but I'm not sure it's worse. If someone is nuts, I generally prefer them to be stupid. They're generally less dangerous that way.

The potential to start a conflict through tweets is pretty stupid. And the fact that the smart people around him aren't reigning him in is even scarier.

[GoMuskies]

It is pennies compared to their "day job" remuneration

I'm not going to argue whether boards are effective/worthwhile/whatever, but the quoted part is my point. Complain about executive comp if you want. In a lot of cases I won't disagree. But board comp isn't enough to care about (in most cases).

And on executive comp, I'm all for requiring lots of disclosure, but I don't see any reason to otherwise regulate how high it can/should go. I'll leave that to the ISS/CALPERS of the world.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Corporate boards are an absolute joke in this country. I oversaw proxy voting for a bit, and can tell you first hand that boards rarely ever add any value or guidance to a company. Especially when the CEO is the chairman and even worse when the CEO is the founder.

That being said they are paid in-line with the market demand for their time. It is pennies compared to their "day job" remuneration and fractions of pennies compared to CEOs. Of course, many spend less than 24 hours a year on board work.

$250k each for an average of F500 companies is not pennies (per Boston Globe). It's pennies when you consider executive pay, but certainly not pennies when you put a human eye to them.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I'm not going to argue whether boards are effective/worthwhile/whatever, but the quoted part is my point. Complain about executive comp if you want. In a lot of cases I won't disagree. But board comp isn't enough to care about (in most cases).

And on executive comp, I'm all for requiring lots of disclosure, but I don't see any reason to otherwise regulate how high it can/should go. I'll leave that to the ISS/CALPERS of the world.

SEC requires public companies to disclose executive pay vs. worker pay in their proxy statements now.

[GoMuskies]

SEC requires public companies to disclose executive pay vs. worker pay in their proxy statements now.

And I've got no issue with that. Also, if the stock is performing well, I'm not going to give a rat's ass what the C-suite guys/gals are getting paid.

[Caf]

$250k each for an average of F500 companies is not pennies (per Boston Globe). It's pennies when you consider executive pay, but certainly not pennies when you put a human eye to them.

Oh so exactly what I said?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

And I've got no issue with that. Also, if the stock is performing well, I'm not going to give a rat's ass what the C-suite guys/gals are getting paid.

Why do you not care? It is directly causing wage stagnation everywhere else.

Yes 250k is a lot for one person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on both of those points.

[mohr5150]

Also:
1) Many if not all teaching jobs offer some/partial loan forgiveness after a certain amount of time being a teacher.
2) Teachers gets raises based on service time very easily. Their time at 40k is short lived.

Uhhh... think a little differently. I've been a Catholic school teacher for 24 years, and my salary has been stagnant for 10+ years. I started in 95 at 17,000. And don't give me the BS of working 10 months. I spend a whole lot of time in the summer trying to better myself as a teacher by taking courses, attending conferences, and updating assignments to meet the needs of today's students. Counting my commute, I'm working for 10-11 hours a day, and that's not counting any grading or communicating with parents that happens at home. I get a 15 minute lunch on most days and a 40 minute break during the day typically spent working or putting out fires. Teaching is a tough, tough job. Anyone who wants to try it out or belittle it, message me and I'll give you the opportunity to give it a try after you take the Vertus class we have to take because of the Church turning a blind eye on pedophiles.

[Juice]

Uhhh... think a little differently. I've been a Catholic school teacher for 24 years, and my salary has been stagnant for 10+ years. I started in 95 at 17,000. And don't give me the BS of working 10 months. I spend a whole lot of time in the summer trying to better myself as a teacher by taking courses, attending conferences, and updating assignments to meet the needs of today's students. Counting my commute, I'm working for 10-11 hours a day, and that's not counting any grading or communicating with parents that happens at home. I get a 15 minute lunch on most days and a 40 minute break during the day typically spent working or putting out fires. Teaching is a tough, tough job. Anyone who wants to try it out or belittle it, message me and I'll give you the opportunity to give it a try after you take the Vertus class we have to take because of the Church turning a blind eye on pedophiles.

I was referring to public schools.

Counting my commute? Jesus dude, who counts their commute when counting the hours they worked that day?

And I had to take the Virtus class and update with online stuff for coaching at a Catholic school.

[bigdiggins]

Arizona, serious question. Why does the left always go after CEO pay, but not address those who make significantly more? The average Fotune 500 CEO makes about $10.5 million. This of course includes equity comp which is only valuable if the company succeeds. Bastion of progressivism Matt Damon averages $40m per year. The average nba salary is $5m and of course LeBron makes nearly $40m. Are entertainers exempt because they lean left and its easier to just paint the CEO as a racist old white guy, or do those on the left honestly think it's easy to lead a large organization so CEO s should not be able to capitalize on their talent as an entertainer does?

If we limited those salaries then teachers could afford to go to a movie or a ballgame. :biggrin:

[mohr5150]

I was referring to public schools.

Counting my commute? Jesus dude, who counts their commute when counting the hours they worked that day?

And I had to take the Virtus class and update with online stuff for coaching at a Catholic school.

Really? Criticizing the use of commute time is your comment? Cool. 10 hours then. Not counting time at home. Or evening meetings. Or conferences. It obviously doesn't matter to you because people who didn't choose a job to get rich should just shut up and accept the "mistake" they made. I'm glad you do your part coaching. I also have coached my son's baseball and soccer teams every year for the past six years. So, if you are already Virtus trained, just send me a private message when you want to try out teaching.

[Xville]

Really? Criticizing the use of commute time is your comment? Cool. 10 hours then. Not counting time at home. Or evening meetings. Or conferences. It obviously doesn't matter to you because people who didn't choose a job to get rich should just shut up and accept the "mistake" they made. I'm glad you do your part coaching. I also have coached my son's baseball and soccer teams every year for the past six years. So, if you are already Virtus trained, just send me a private message when you want to try out teaching.

I dont think anyone is saying you made a "mistake" or that your job isnt hard. I'm sure that it is and no way in hell I could have the patience to do it. However, you cant go into a profession knowing what you are getting yourself into, and then complain about the work, the pay. Not that I'm saying you personally are doing that. I do however hear and see that quite a bit from the teacher community.

[muskienick]

I dont think anyone is saying you made a "mistake" or that your job isnt hard. I'm sure that it is and no way in hell I could have the patience to do it. However, you cant go into a profession knowing what you are getting yourself into, and then complain about the work, the pay. Not that I'm saying you personally are doing that. I do however hear and see that quite a bit from the teacher community.

Where in his postings did he actually "complain"? What he DID post was a description of his daily routine as a teacher. Since when is that the same as a complaint? Instead, as doing so, he was inviting us readers to compare our daily work-related routine with his and draw our own conclusions.

He provided FACTS, not COMPLAINTS!

[Juice]

Really? Criticizing the use of commute time is your comment? Cool. 10 hours then. Not counting time at home. Or evening meetings. Or conferences. It obviously doesn't matter to you because people who didn't choose a job to get rich should just shut up and accept the "mistake" they made. I'm glad you do your part coaching. I also have coached my son's baseball and soccer teams every year for the past six years. So, if you are already Virtus trained, just send me a private message when you want to try out teaching.

Guy, I also have a job where I work for way less than other people with a JD because I like my job but I also don't cry about my decisions because the larger working world doesn't think I deserve more money.

[Xville]

Where in his postings did he actually "complain"? What he DID post was a description of his daily routine as a teacher. Since when is that the same as a complaint? Instead, as doing so, he was inviting us readers to compare our daily work-related routine with his and draw our own conclusions.

He provided FACTS, not COMPLAINTS!

Um I said in my posting not that he personally was complaining...reading comprehension is your friend

[bjf123]

Arizona, serious question. Why does the left always go after CEO pay, but not address those who make significantly more? The average Fotune 500 CEO makes about $10.5 million. This of course includes equity comp which is only valuable if the company succeeds. Bastion of progressivism Matt Damon averages $40m per year. The average nba salary is $5m and of course LeBron makes nearly $40m. Are entertainers exempt because they lean left and its easier to just paint the CEO as a racist old white guy, or do those on the left honestly think it's easy to lead a large organization so CEO s should not be able to capitalize on their talent as an entertainer does?

If we limited those salaries then teachers could afford to go to a movie or a ballgame. :biggrin:

I agree part of it is the fact that most of Hollywood leans hard Left. How many films and TV shows are shot in Canada or overseas where it costs a lot less that in the US? If they do film in the US, they’re looking for what city / state will give them the biggest tax breaks. Where is the Left in calling Hollywood out for that? Let a pro sports team or major corporation (i.e something likely run by an old white guy who probably leans Right) try to get similar tax breaks and the Left goes nuts because they’re not paying their fair share.

Of course, you don’t hear most of the athletes and entertainers publicly saying the rich don’t pay their fair share, though some have. If those who publicly say they wouldn’t mind paying more taxes had any integrity, they’d have their tax preparers not take all the deductions available to them so they could pay more. Nothing illegal about that! I’m guessing Madonna, Springsteen, Rosie O’Donnell, etc. have an army of CPAs and tax attorneys making sure they pay the least amount possible.

There is a slight difference between CEOs and celebrities in that once an athlete can’t perform, or a movie star’s films stop being blockbusters, they do lose most of their future earnings potential. The celebrities will have residuals coming in for years. How many CEOs of failing companies walk away with an insane golden parachute and end up leading another company in a year or two? It’s harder to see the value a CEO brings to a company, where as it’s pretty easy to see the value of the celebrity. People are paying to see them. When a film flops, it doesn’t impact as many people as when a CEO screws up and negatively impacts a Fortune 500 company, so the stakes are much higher and the pressure much greater for the CEO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mohr5150]

Guy, I also have a job where I work for way less than other people with a JD because I like my job but I also don't cry about my decisions because the larger working world doesn't think I deserve more money.

Not crying, Guy. I've worked as a teacher for 24 years. I like what I do and am pretty passionate about it. I was just stating facts, guy, against the assumptions made about teachers' salaries and how easily they increase. I've stayed in the private sector hoping that, by working for a Catholic school, it might balance out all the bad crap I do and get me a chance to enter the pearly gates. I'm glad you have a job you like...guy. My offer still stands.

[muskienick]

Um I said in my posting not that he personally was complaining...reading comprehension is your friend

Writing memory is one's friend also, XVILLE. Did you forget this sentence: "However, you cant go into a profession knowing what you are getting yourself into, and then complain about the work, the pay."

[Xville]

Writing memory is one's friend also, XVILLE. Did you forget this sentence: "However, you cant go into a profession knowing what you are getting yourself into, and then complain about the work, the pay."

Did you stop reading after that? Look at the sentence that follows that one. Geezus...it's funny I'm talking about reading comprehension during a teaching discussion.

[Juice]

Not crying, Guy. I've worked as a teacher for 24 years. I like what I do and am pretty passionate about it. I was just stating facts, guy, against the assumptions made about teachers' salaries and how easily they increase. I've stayed in the private sector hoping that, by working for a Catholic school, it might balance out all the bad crap I do and get me a chance to enter the pearly gates. I'm glad you have a job you like...guy. My offer still stands.

To become a teacher? No I don't want to be one. How does that make anything I said incorrect?

[GoMuskies]

Post Malone has survived. Hopefully this is a bipartisan moment of joy that we can all use to come together as a nation!

[bobbiemcgee]

Apparently, Trump didn't hire the "best people", just the best crooks.

[GoMuskies]

Apparently, Trump didn't hire the "best people", just the best crooks.

That is not in the spirit of Post Malone.

[bjf123]

Post Malone has survived. Hopefully this is a bipartisan moment of joy that we can all use to come together as a nation!

Who, or what, is a Post Malone? Maybe a relative of Karl, The Mailman, Malone, who happens to be a post player? We can use one!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

8 out of 10 convictions for Manafort, the remaining 10 can be prosecuted again. Cohen pleads to 8 and said under oath he and Trump committed campaign financing violations together.

Toss in they found Tibbitts today and the suspect is an illegal immigrant. Though the later is bad, this case is in Iowa and not in a sanctuary city nor in a bastion of liberal leadership.

[Juice]

8 out of 10 convictions for Manafort, the remaining 10 can be prosecuted again. Cohen pleads to 8 and said under oath he and Trump committed campaign financing violations together.

Toss in they found Tibbitts today and the suspect is an illegal immigrant. Though the later is bad, this case is in Iowa and not in a sanctuary city nor in a bastion of liberal leadership.

Philadelphia was in the news a week or two ago for being a sanctuary city and an illegal immigrant raping a 5 year old girl
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/sanctuary-city-mcswain-juan-ramon-vasquez-aguirre-ochoa-justice-department-philadelphia-immigration-kenney-krasner-20180808.html

[muskienick]

Did you stop reading after that? Look at the sentence that follows that one. Geezus...it's funny I'm talking about reading comprehension during a teaching discussion.

You are taking a chapter from the Trump way of doing things: you claimed that he WAS complaining in one sentence and then claimed in the next sentence that you aren't saying that he complained. At least Trump leaves a longer time gap between his conflicting statements!

[Xville]

You are taking a chapter from the Trump way of doing things: you claimed that he WAS complaining in one sentence and then claimed in the next sentence that you aren't saying that he complained. At least Trump leaves a longer time gap between his conflicting statements!

I didn't claim he was complaining..you are either just arguing because you cant admit you are wrong or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

Why in one sentence would I say he was complaining and then the next say he wasnt? That makes zero sense. The first sentence was a general statement I have heard from teachers In the recent past.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Philadelphia was in the news a week or two ago for being a sanctuary city and an illegal immigrant raping a 5 year old girl
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/sanctuary-city-mcswain-juan-ramon-vasquez-aguirre-ochoa-justice-department-philadelphia-immigration-kenney-krasner-20180808.html

All that means is an awful person committed rape like the awful guy in Iowa committed murder. The only viable study that I am aware that compared crime rates of citizens vs. illegals was done by the Cato Institute. They reviewed data from Texas and noted that illegals commit crimes at a clip 40% less than citizens. Trump has you going nuts over something that just isn't that problem you think it is.

[GoMuskies]

the Cato Institute

It warms my heart to see you quoting the Koch family think tank.

[bjf123]

All that means is an awful person committed rape like the awful guy in Iowa committed murder. The only viable study that I am aware that compared crime rates of citizens vs. illegals was done by the Cato Institute. They reviewed data from Texas and noted that illegals commit crimes at a clip 40% less than citizens. Trump has you going nuts over something that just isn't that problem you think it is.

Doesn’t surprise me at all that illegals commit less crime than our citizens. Most probably just want to do their jobs and be left alone. That doesn’t change the fact that we still need to do a better job enforcing border security.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Doesn’t surprise me at all that illegals commit less crime than our citizens. Most probably just want to do their jobs and be left alone. That doesn’t change the fact that we still need to do a better job enforcing border security.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, now that you accept that illegals are committing less crime why is it that you fear them so much?

There are approximately 11M illegals in the country (that is actually decreasing). Of that, Pew stated that about 8M have jobs. 131M Americans work overall, so they make up about 6% of the workforce and 3% of the total population. How can a group that makes up so few of us be such a massive problem that would require this much of our attention?

[Caf]

So, now that you accept that illegals are committing less crime why is it that you fear them so much?

There are approximately 11M illegals in the country (that is actually decreasing). Of that, Pew stated that about 8M have jobs. 131M Americans work overall, so they make up about 6% of the workforce and 3% of the total population. How can a group that makes up so few of us be such a massive problem that would require this much of our attention?

I do not agree with what I'm about to say, but I think the reasonable conservative's response to this is that the tolerance for migrant crime should be zero since they're already not here legally.

[Xville]

So, now that you accept that illegals are committing less crime why is it that you fear them so much?

There are approximately 11M illegals in the country (that is actually decreasing). Of that, Pew stated that about 8M have jobs. 131M Americans work overall, so they make up about 6% of the workforce and 3% of the total population. How can a group that makes up so few of us be such a massive problem that would require this much of our attention?

So, since it happens infrequently, I can assume you don't think school shootings are anything that requires attention either. Or heck murderers are at all in fact. Let's not worry about it or pay much attention to it because only a small percent of the population commit it.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

So, since it happens infrequently, I can assume you don't think school shootings are anything that requires attention either. Or heck murderers are at all in fact. Let's not worry about it or pay much attention to it because only a small percent of the population commit it.

Except as you may know, school shootings are at an all time high. Illegal immigrant crime is not and occurs around 40% lower than citizen crime. Should we kick out the citizens?

[Caf]

So, since it happens infrequently, I can assume you don't think school shootings are anything that requires attention either. Or heck murderers are at all in fact. Let's not worry about it or pay much attention to it because only a small percent of the population commit it.

This point makes no sense. Maybe leave this one to Juice.

[Juice]

This point makes no sense. Maybe leave this one to Juice.

My point has been that increased attention to an issue that is actually happening more infrequently doesn't actually mean its a GROWING problem. It's still a problem but not one that is worsening.

And the solution to those issues is not to infringe upon the rights of lawful people but actually enforce the laws already on the books.

[Caf]

My point has been that increased attention to an issue that is actually happening more infrequently doesn't actually mean its a GROWING problem. It's still a problem but not one that is worsening.

And the solution to those issues is not to infringe upon the rights of lawful people but actually enforce the laws already on the books.

Of course your first 2 sentences are true. I don't think anyone would argue that any amount of murder is not a problem.

However a zero crime tolerance is unrealistic and a straw man argument against this enormous group of people's presence in the country.

[Juice]

Of course your first 2 sentences are true. I don't think anyone would argue that any amount of murder is not a problem.

However a zero crime tolerance is unrealistic and a straw man argument against this enormous group of people's presence in the country.

I was talking strictly about school shootings. And I may have misunderstood each of your guys' points so I'll just leave it at that.

[bjf123]

So, now that you accept that illegals are committing less crime why is it that you fear them so much?

There are approximately 11M illegals in the country (that is actually decreasing). Of that, Pew stated that about 8M have jobs. 131M Americans work overall, so they make up about 6% of the workforce and 3% of the total population. How can a group that makes up so few of us be such a massive problem that would require this much of our attention?

I don’t fear them at all. A company I worked for a number of years ago has 4 or 5 construction operations in FL. The best workers were Hispanic. Great bunch of guys. We verified the SSN and name of all employees at all locations, FL, GA, TN, KY, OH, IN, IL, and WI. Even doing that, we had a pretty good idea that not all of them were here legally.

My point is you can’t have open borders and let everyone in. Immigration for any country needs to be managed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The wall is not the solution. That wall is a solution looking for a problem.

The solution is most likely work visas to allow them to work and leave and repeat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobbiemcgee]

The wall is not the solution. That wall is a solution looking for a problem.

You must know it's going to be a free wall. Mexico is going to write us a check for it.

[bjf123]

Work visas would be legal immigration. Nothing wrong with that. We have to slow or stop the flow of illegal immigration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Work visas would be legal immigration. Nothing wrong with that. We have to slow or stop the flow of illegal immigration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It cannot be as hard as it is now to get a work VISA. That is one of the main issues. A construction worker just can't navigate the process.

[bjf123]

It cannot be as hard as it is now to get a work VISA. That is one of the main issues. A construction worker just can't navigate the process.

Then fix the process. That’s not a reason for lax immigration enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Then fix the process. That’s not a reason for lax immigration enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good luck, it's political suicide to even mention 'immigration reform'.

And....good luck to Trump. Cohen plead and Manafort convicted. I also completely forgot New York state was looking into their "charity" that never filed as a charity. It looks like they want to speak with Cohen about that.

[Strange Brew]

Good luck, it's political suicide to even mention 'immigration reform'.

And....good luck to Trump. Cohen plead and Manafort convicted. I also completely forgot New York state was looking into their "charity" that never filed as a charity. It looks like they want to speak with Cohen about that.

Manafort conviction has nothing to do with Russia or Trump.
Cohen’s lawyer is Lanny Davis so there’s a HUGE credibility issue. Good luck with NY. The AG is a nut who tried to sue the fossil fuel industry.

[paulxu]

Definitely a nut. Magna Cum Laude from Ratcliffe, Georgetown Law, Acting Solicitor General of the United States, pledged to hold the NY office only as a place holder until the next election. Yep...a nut.

All the worry about the Clinton Foundation which has helped millions of people around the world, and the Trump Foundation was just another scam job like his University. Some people just never learn. PT was right.

[bjf123]

Good luck, it's political suicide to even mention 'immigration reform'.


I agree it’s political suicide to actually try to do anything about immigration reform. Both parties would rather use it as a campaign issue. The Left can say the Right is anti immigrant and racist. The Right can say the Left wants open borders to get more voters.


All the worry about the Clinton Foundation which has helped millions of people around the world, and the Trump Foundation was just another scam job like his University. Some people just never learn. PT was right.

Didn’t the Clinton Foundation lose most of their ongoing contributions from lots of foreign governments and politicians right after Hillary lost the election?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Manafort conviction has nothing to do with Russia or Trump.
Cohen’s lawyer is Lanny Davis so there’s a HUGE credibility issue. Good luck with NY. The AG is a nut who tried to sue the fossil fuel industry.

Manafort's conviction and subsequent sentencing is important in only that it basically makes him a federal prisoner until his death. It's the second trial where the party begins, the feds have already said they have boatloads of evidence against him for acting as an unregistered foreign agent.

Cohen may just rat out everyone. A shady fixer lawyer who works for a shady business man for decades and records phone calls. It could be nothing, but this could and probably is Watergate levels of corruption. Go ahead and sprinkle a little catch-n-kill journalism from the Enquirer head who got immunity to gab about protecting Trump for a decade.

[Strange Brew]

Definitely a nut. Magna Cum Laude from Ratcliffe, Georgetown Law, Acting Solicitor General of the United States, pledged to hold the NY office only as a place holder until the next election. Yep...a nut.

All the worry about the Clinton Foundation which has helped millions of people around the world, and the Trump Foundation was just another scam job like his University. Some people just never learn. PT was right.

Yeah, the Clinton’s payday and Haiti. Get real.

[Strange Brew]

Manafort's conviction and subsequent sentencing is important in only that it basically makes him a federal prisoner until his death. It's the second trial where the party begins, the feds have already said they have boatloads of evidence against him for acting as an unregistered foreign agent.

Cohen may just rat out everyone. A shady fixer lawyer who works for a shady business man for decades and records phone calls. It could be nothing, but this could and probably is Watergate levels of corruption. Go ahead and sprinkle a little catch-n-kill journalism from the Enquirer head who got immunity to gab about protecting Trump for a decade.

Haha. Dig deeper into Manfort. Dude was employed by Mueller and McCain.

[bobbiemcgee]

Haha. Did in deeper into Manfort. Dude was employed by Mueller and McCain.

Don't care where he got his money. The dude owes us taxpayers millions and millions. Why does he think he didn't have to pay? Pay up, assho;e.

[paulxu]

Yeah, the Clinton’s payday and Haiti. Get real.

I don't think the Clinton's take a salary from the foundation. I could be wrong.
Characterize this rating vs. the Trump Foundation and it's misuse of funds causing the current investigation:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Don't care where he got his money. The dude owes us taxpayers millions and millions. Why does he think he didn't have to pay? Pay up, assho;e.

Exactly, when the defendant starts attacking the prosecutors and cops it's a last ditch effort to sway the jury.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I don't think the Clinton's take a salary from the foundation. I could be wrong.
Characterize this rating vs. the Trump Foundation and it's misuse of funds causing the current investigation:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Clinton's definitely isn't as bad as Trump's, however, since Trump's never registered I don't think it really can be compared. That said, Clinton's was an obvious scam charity just like athletes charities. They book 2-3 things in a foreign vacation spot and spend a month relaxing and 2-3 days doing charity work and book it all to the charity.

[paulxu]

Clinton's definitely isn't as bad as Trump's, however, since Trump's never registered I don't think it really can be compared. That said, Clinton's was an obvious scam charity just like athletes charities. They book 2-3 things in a foreign vacation spot and spend a month relaxing and 2-3 days doing charity work and book it all to the charity.

You may be correct. I do note on Charity Tracker that they get really good grades comparing admin expenses (like you are noting) to total spent on charity.
So they apparently did it well.
I only have one direct contact with their charitable work. My nephew is a pediatrician, and spent a year in Rwanda setting up pediatric training for their doctors in some very trying circumstances. His work, and that of his colleagues, was paid for by the Clinton Foundation in coordination with Harvard Medical.

Contrast that with Trump using his foundation to pay off flagpole fines or buy pictures of himself to hang in Mar a Lago, and, well...
Just take a quick glance at Charity Trackers list of how the Clinton Foundation has helped people around the world.

[GoMuskies]

I don't particularly give a shit about these charitable foundation issues, as I think they're generally driven by ego more than a desire to help people (not always, but generally), but I don't THINK the actual complaint about the Clinton Foundation is the charitable work itself. I think the issue has been at least the perception that donating to the Clinton Foundation is a way of buying influence with the Clintons. Less important now, but pretty important when Hillary was a Senator, Secretary of State and presumptive shoo-in to be President.

The best charity work I'm aware of Trump doing was 100% ego driven. They gave a lot of money to presumably good and legitimate charities during The Apprentice. Those were charities chosen by people not named Trump.

[paulxu]

Although I disagreed with many of his positions on a variety of issues, there was never a doubt about his courage.

Safe home, John McCain.

[muskienick]

Although I disagreed with many of his positions on a variety of issues, there was never a doubt about his courage.

Safe home, John McCain.

I agree 100%, Paul. I would add that he was also very well-meaning relative to the vast majority of his political machinations. One huge exception was his choice of the Governor of Alaska for his Vice-Presidential running mate. They never seemed to be on the same planet when discussing important issues. (And that is a big tribute to Sen. McCain!!!)

[Caf]

Flags at White House return to full-staff after brief tribute to McCain (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flags-at-white-house-return-to-full-staff-after-brief-tribute-to-mccain/2018/08/27/14f5a9b2-a9ec-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.c3fa8f6e82e8)

This President, who many of you adore, is an absolute piece of trash.

[X-man]

Flags at White House return to full-staff after brief tribute to McCain (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flags-at-white-house-return-to-full-staff-after-brief-tribute-to-mccain/2018/08/27/14f5a9b2-a9ec-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.c3fa8f6e82e8)

This President, who many of you adore, is an absolute piece of trash.

I agree. Just when you think Trump can't get any more petty and ridiculous, he manages to lower the bar still more.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I am sure he tweeted his thoughts and prayers.

[GoMuskies]

Flags at White House return to full-staff after brief tribute to McCain (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flags-at-white-house-return-to-full-staff-after-brief-tribute-to-mccain/2018/08/27/14f5a9b2-a9ec-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.c3fa8f6e82e8)


He switched to all week. Does that bring him back to being awesome in your eyes. :lol:

[paulxu]

Can't afford to lose whatever veterans' votes he has.

[bleedXblue]

Flags at White House return to full-staff after brief tribute to McCain (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flags-at-white-house-return-to-full-staff-after-brief-tribute-to-mccain/2018/08/27/14f5a9b2-a9ec-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.c3fa8f6e82e8)

This President, who many of you adore, is an absolute piece of trash.

Cant we agree that most politicians are trash? I mean really there are so few really good, honest ones out there.

[bleedXblue]

Trump could (if he really listened to his advisers and shut the hell up) run away with the 2020 election. He misses on so many opportunities to bond with the American public. He is without question, the least likeable and relatable president that I can remember in my lifetime. I go back to the Jimmy Carter days. His arrogance is gonna catch up with him if it hasn't already.

[Caf]

He switched to all week. Does that bring him back to being awesome in your eyes. :lol:

Veteran groups tell Trump to lower flag to half-staff to honor McCain (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/403826-veteran-groups-tell-trump-to-lower-flag-to-half-staff-to-honor-mccain)

Can't wait to see the same morons who aren't blinking at this whine about NFL players kneeling for the next 6 months.

[GoMuskies]

Veteran groups tell Trump to lower flag to half-staff to honor McCain (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/403826-veteran-groups-tell-trump-to-lower-flag-to-half-staff-to-honor-mccain)

Can't wait to see the same morons who aren't blinking at this whine about NFL players kneeling for the next 6 months.

And the same morons who don''t think anyone should be offended when NFL players kneel being up in arms about this. People's offense tends to be pretty convenient.

[Caf]

And the same morons who don''t think anyone should be offended when NFL players kneel being up in arms about this. People's offense tends to be pretty convenient.

Sometimes I do this crazy thing where I hold the President of the United States and NFL players to different standards.

[GoMuskies]

That's obviously a mistake.

[Xville]

Trump could (if he really listened to his advisers and shut the hell up) run away with the 2020 election. He misses on so many opportunities to bond with the American public. He is without question, the least likeable and relatable president that I can remember in my lifetime. I go back to the Jimmy Carter days. His arrogance is gonna catch up with him if it hasn't already.

I'm pretty sure that trump is going to win in a landslide in 2020 due to the fact that the Democrats wont be able to come up with anything better. That's sad but its reality.

[paulxu]

What is it with Trump and flagpoles? He just can't seem to get it right.

Used his foundation to settle a fine with Palm Beach over a flagpole, and now this.

Needs better advisers. (Duh)

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I'm pretty sure that trump is going to win in a landslide in 2020 due to the fact that the Democrats wont be able to come up with anything better. That's sad but its reality.

2 years is a long time. Another two years of Mueller digging around is a long time. Trump is already guilty of campaign finance violations. The game changer could be SDNY's investigation into the Trump charity. Trump was using charity money to buy paintings of himself to hang at Mar-a-Lago. There is no way that charity is even close to being on the up-and-up.

[GoMuskies]

I'm pretty sure that trump is going to win in a landslide in 2020 due to the fact that the Democrats wont be able to come up with anything better. That's sad but its reality.

I'm not so sure Trump will win in 2020, but I'm pretty certain that no matter who wins in 2020, America will lose.

[Strange Brew]

2 years is a long time. Another two years of Mueller digging around is a long time. Trump is already guilty of campaign finance violations. The game changer could be SDNY's investigation into the Trump charity. Trump was using charity money to buy paintings of himself to hang at Mar-a-Lago. There is no way that charity is even close to being on the up-and-up.

Did not violate campaign finance law but make stuff up.

[Xville]

2 years is a long time. Another two years of Mueller digging around is a long time. Trump is already guilty of campaign finance violations. The game changer could be SDNY's investigation into the Trump charity. Trump was using charity money to buy paintings of himself to hang at Mar-a-Lago. There is no way that charity is even close to being on the up-and-up.


You watch too much cnn. Maybe the 2018 elections will open your eyes to the fact that Democrats holding power of any substance is going to be a very long time from now.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

You watch too much cnn. Maybe the 2018 elections will open your eyes to the fact that Democrats holding power of any substance is going to be a very long time from now.

The day you see it's not us vs. them or Republicans vs. Democrats will be a brighter day. The idea that it's adversarial is the greatest con over humanity since the devil convince us he doesn't exist.

[Xville]

The day you see it's not us vs. them or Republicans vs. Democrats will be a brighter day. The idea that it's adversarial is the greatest con over humanity since the devil convince us he doesn't exist.

Ha that's hilarious coming from a trump hater.

Its adversarial to me because I agree with almost nothing that the democratic traditional platform is at the moment except for the allowance to stick it into whoever other consenting adult you want.

I'm not thrilled with the Republican party either but my beliefs are more in line with theirs.

I do agree that we need to come closer to the middle but I honestly believe that day may not come back in our lifetime...we have gone way too far.

Had Mccain not picked such an effing moron in 08, he may have gotten elected and the right would not have been so pissed off two years ago from the previous eight to elect the guy we have now, and the left may not have gone to extreme socialism platform measures.

[noteggs]

Cant we agree that most politicians are trash? I mean really there are so few really good, honest ones out there.

Can’t argue

Most politicians do not serve all Americans and are only serving themselves! Unfortunately they thrive on dividing us because that’s the only way they’ll get (re)elected.

For the most part, Washington shouldn’t have a lot to do with how I live my life. The almighty first then family...faith, hope, and charity!

Of course we need laws (discrimination, limited taxes, assault, etc) but have hard time thinking of a political bureaucrat knowing more than me on how I should live.

[bobbiemcgee]

Did not violate campaign finance law but make stuff up.

His Bunny flys first class tho.

[X-man]

Cant we agree that most politicians are trash? I mean really there are so few really good, honest ones out there.

I worked in DC for the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 10 years. Toward the end of that time, I stopped voting and stopped reading anything in the news about the federal government because seemingly every good person who came to Washington as an elected official turned into a douchebag. In DC, the local news is the national news and because everyone is so clued in to what is happening, a lot of the media there focuses on why it is happening. And the why is never good. What's more, everyone in DC seemed to think that what happens inside the Beltway there is the most important thing going on in everyone's life throughout the US. No place is more provincial than DC.

It took me a long time to get interested in politics after I left DC. Now I guess I am just as delusional about politicians as I was before I ever moved there. But one must dream, and hope, I guess. And maybe the really strong and moral politicians can withstand all the forces there that can corrupt them. But it has to be tough with people throwing money at you constantly, and with being surrounded by people you control and therefore people desperate to meet your every whim.

[bleedXblue]

What is it with Trump and flagpoles? He just can't seem to get it right.

Used his foundation to settle a fine with Palm Beach over a flagpole, and now this.

Needs better advisers. (Duh)

You really think Trump listens to ANYONE? Seriously he is the most arrogant man that has ever lived on planet earth. Like I said earlier, he could 2020 wrapped up already but b/c he doesn't take good, sound advice from his team he will screw it up if he hasn't already.

[Xville]

Flags at White House return to full-staff after brief tribute to McCain (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flags-at-white-house-return-to-full-staff-after-brief-tribute-to-mccain/2018/08/27/14f5a9b2-a9ec-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.c3fa8f6e82e8)

This President, who many of you adore, is an absolute piece of trash.

What is also trash is the mainstream media now acting as if McCain was the greatest human being that ever walked the earth. These are the same people that bashed the hell out of him during the 2008 election and thereafter. Its bs.

[Caf]

What is also trash is the mainstream media now acting as if McCain was the greatest human being that ever walked the earth. These are the same people that bashed the hell out of him during the 2008 election and thereafter. Its bs.

Agreed. Anyone who derided McCain or Romney during their campaigns has been eating crow for some time now. That being said after death there's a certain level of respect, especially for McCain, that is paid regardless of one's politics.

[Lloyd Braun]

From @ryanstruyk

“John McCain favorability ratings by party via Fox News poll -->

Democrats:
60% favorable
29% unfavorable

Republicans:
41% favorable
48% unfavorable”

Bashing him as a politician is not the same as bashing him as a person. I don’t remember anyone questioning his principals. Big difference.

[boozehound]

The day you see it's not us vs. them or Republicans vs. Democrats will be a brighter day. The idea that it's adversarial is the greatest con over humanity since the devil convince us he doesn't exist.

You don't have to look any further than the way that Trump has co-opted the Republican party to see that party lines are more important to a large segment of the population than actual ideas and actions.


Ha that's hilarious coming from a trump hater.

Its adversarial to me because I agree with almost nothing that the democratic traditional platform is at the moment except for the allowance to stick it into whoever other consenting adult you want.

I'm not thrilled with the Republican party either but my beliefs are more in line with theirs.

I do agree that we need to come closer to the middle but I honestly believe that day may not come back in our lifetime...we have gone way too far.

Had Mccain not picked such an effing moron in 08, he may have gotten elected and the right would not have been so pissed off two years ago from the previous eight to elect the guy we have now, and the left may not have gone to extreme socialism platform measures.

Why does him being a 'Trump hater' have anything to do with his argument? If he categorically hated all Republicans and supported all Democrats (or even most), THAT would damage his argument. Him hating Trump has no bearing on anything. Trump should be an extremely hateable person for both Republicans and Democrats. The fact that so many Republicans are jumping through hoops to defend him is actually pretty illustrative in my opinion.

My opinion is that if you align totally (or even almost totally) with one party over the other, you need to examine your ability or willingness to think critically about individual issues. Similarly - if your affiliation with a political party causes you to defend people you would normally detest you need to really give it some thought. People naturally want to pick sides and have enemies, and our political system plays on that to an extreme degree.

[Xville]

You don't have to look any further than the way that Trump has co-opted the Republican party to see that party lines are more important to a large segment of the population than actual ideas and actions.



Why does him being a 'Trump hater' have anything to do with his argument? If he categorically hated all Republicans and supported all Democrats (or even most), THAT would damage his argument. Him hating Trump has no bearing on anything. Trump should be an extremely hateable person for both Republicans and Democrats. The fact that so many Republicans are jumping through hoops to defend him is actually pretty illustrative in my opinion.

My opinion is that if you align totally (or even almost totally) with one party over the other, you need to examine your ability or willingness to think critically about individual issues. Similarly - if your affiliation with a political party causes you to defend people you would normally detest you need to really give it some thought. People naturally want to pick sides and have enemies, and our political system plays on that to an extreme degree.

Hating trump in itself is adversarial.

FWIW I'm registered an independent and I would assume that most of the country is pretty moderate. The problem with today's politics is that the right is becoming more and more right and the left is becoming more and more left. It does force you to pick a side because the moderate doesnt exist on either side at the moment. I truly believe that had McCain won in 08, we would not be as divided as we are now and these extreme politics would not be gaining such traction.

[Xville]

From @ryanstruyk

“John McCain favorability ratings by party via Fox News poll -->

Democrats:
60% favorable
29% unfavorable

Republicans:
41% favorable
48% unfavorable”

Bashing him as a politician is not the same as bashing him as a person. I don’t remember anyone questioning his principals. Big difference.

So you dont remember 08 either...he was labeled a racist by the mainstream media and attacked as a person.

[Lloyd Braun]

Hating trump in itself is adversarial.

FWIW I'm registered an independent and I would assume that most of the country is pretty moderate. The problem with today's politics is that the right is becoming more and more right and the left is becoming more and more left. It does force you to pick a side because the moderate doesnt exist on either side at the moment. I truly believe that had McCain won in 08, we would not be as divided as we are now and these extreme politics would not be gaining such traction.

Why, because McCain was white? Obama was fairly moderate relatively speaking. Contrary to what you watch on Fox News.

[Lloyd Braun]

So you dont remember 08 either...he was labeled a racist by the mainstream media and attacked as a person.

I guess I don’t remember that. Do you have examples?

[boozehound]

Hating trump in itself is adversarial.

FWIW I'm registered an independent and I would assume that most of the country is pretty moderate. The problem with today's politics is that the right is becoming more and more right and the left is becoming more and more left. It does force you to pick a side because the moderate doesnt exist on either side at the moment. I truly believe that had McCain won in 08, we would not be as divided as we are now and these extreme politics would not be gaining such traction.

Why? He is an individual, and an extraordinary flawed one at that. I'm not talking out hating a group of people, just one person. Is hating Roderigo Duterte in itself adversarial? Trump has earned any hatred he gets through his words and actions. I argue we should all hate him, because he represents a major fissure in our political system. It's been brewing for a while now, but the shift in rhetoric since his election is seismic.

Most of the terrible things that happen in the world today, and historically, (outside of Natural disasters) are predicated upon dividing people into groups and then convincing them that the other group is 'the enemy', typically for the gain of the ruler / ruling class. When people take sides (either side) they perpetuate that divide.

[Xville]

Why, because McCain was white? Obama was fairly moderate relatively speaking. Contrary to what you watch on Fox News.

Yeah because McCain was white. Insert eyeroll here.

8 years of Obama caused extreme division in this country...if you need proof, look to trump being elected president and thus the reaction to that of democratic socialism candidates for house seats.

[Xville]

I guess I don’t remember that. Do you have examples?

I invite you to look up your own research if you want.

McCain was ridden hard in 08 due to his previous political voting in which he was against recognizing mlk day as a national holiday and voted against taking down the Confederate flag.

[boozehound]

So you dont remember 08 either...he was labeled a racist by the mainstream media and attacked as a person.


Yeah because McCain was white. Insert eyeroll here.

8 years of Obama caused extreme division in this country...if you need proof, look to trump being elected president and thus the reaction to that of democratic socialism candidates for house seats.

I keep hearing this argument. It generally lacks specificity, and comes off as a weird argument to me.

Why did 8 years of Obama cause extreme division? I don't think his rhetoric was not extremely divisive. How is Trump somehow Obama's fault? Is Obama responsible for people's reaction to his Presidency? He certainly could be condescending and preachy, but I don't think that justifies electing a shit show like Trump. There were at least 8 other GOP candidates that would have behaved like civilized and relatively intelligent human beings.

BTW in the interest of full disclosure - I voted for Obama in 2008 despite having been a fan of McCain for years prior to the election (Palin did it for me). I then voted for Romney in 2008, despite not thinking that Obama was terrible or did a terrible job. I'm pretty neutral on Obama in general. He wasn't great, but he wasn't terrible. Trump, however, is terrible. Nobody should be defending him.

[Caf]

Hating trump in itself is adversarial.

FWIW I'm registered an independent and I would assume that most of the country is pretty moderate. The problem with today's politics is that the right is becoming more and more right and the left is becoming more and more left. It does force you to pick a side because the moderate doesnt exist on either side at the moment. I truly believe that had McCain won in 08, we would not be as divided as we are now and these extreme politics would not be gaining such traction.

All explanations of our current polarity go back to the financial crisis. The tea party and occupy wall street which is now the Bernie Sanders crowd started in response to our handling of that.

Specifically relating to the Republican Party, a President named George Bush signed a massive bailout contradicting their small government stances for the second time in our nations history. This, and specifically the Rick Santelli rant on CNBC, gave birth to the Tea Party. The rest is history.

[Xville]

I keep hearing this argument. It generally lacks specificity, and comes off as a weird argument to me.

Why did 8 years of Obama cause extreme division? I don't think his rhetoric was not extremely divisive. How is Trump somehow Obama's fault? Is Obama responsible for people's reaction to his Presidency? He certainly could be condescending and preachy, but I don't think that justifies electing a shit show like Trump. There were at least 8 other GOP candidates that would have behaved like civilized and relatively intelligent human beings.

BTW in the interest of full disclosure - I voted for Obama in 2008 despite having been a fan of McCain for years prior to the election (Palin did it for me). I then voted for Romney in 2008, despite not thinking that Obama was terrible or did a terrible job. I'm pretty neutral on Obama in general. He wasn't great, but he wasn't terrible. Trump, however, is terrible. Nobody should be defending him.

I dont think it was necessarily oabamas fault but the way he handled things toward the latter years of his presidency caused friction not only between black and white but left vs right. I am speaking specifically regarding his handling of cop shootings and racial tensions. Trump played off of that and was able to rally a base that swarmed to the voting booths.

Btw I think trump is a terrible human being but hes not a terrible president at least I think that's hard to define yet.

[Xville]

All explanations of our current polarity go back to the financial crisis. The tea party and occupy wall street which is now the Bernie Sanders crowd started in response to our handling of that.

Specifically relating to the Republican Party, a President named George Bush signed a massive bailout contradicting their small government stances for the second time in our nations history. This, and specifically the Rick Santelli rant on CNBC, gave birth to the Tea Party. The rest is history.

I can get on board with this idea. I still believe though that had McCain won the presidency it would have quelled some of this polarity and trump definitely would not have been elected.

[boozehound]

I dont think it was necessarily oabamas fault but the way he handled things toward the latter years of his presidency caused friction not only between black and white but left vs right. I am speaking specifically regarding his handling of cop shootings and racial tensions. Trump played off of that and was able to rally a base that swarmed to the voting booths.

Btw I think trump is a terrible human being but hes not a terrible president at least I think that's hard to define yet.

I will agree with your first point. Strongly disagree with the second. This is a VERY dangerous point of view in my opinion. He has no decision making processes at all. The only thing he has done is cut taxes without a way to pay for it. That's great right now, but in the longer run I'm concerned about the budgetary impact. His foreign policy is disjointed. We likely won't know the ramifications of these types of things for years.

I actually think that Trump getting elected was the worst possible thing that could have happened to the (traditional) conservative ideology when given a 10 year time horizon. The Democrats hold the votes if they can get enough engagement, particularly from the low income crowd and young people. If they galvanize behind the Bernie Sanders wing of the party (which seems to be happening) and get enough engagement to get him elected AND turn House/Senate/either it's going to be bad news.

I was, and am, of the mindset that traditional conservative values were likely best preserved by a mediocre Hillary presidency while maintaining control of Congress until an actual conservative could be elected.

Trump followed by Sanders (or similar) would be a total f-ing disaster.

[GoMuskies]

I still believe though that had McCain won the presidency it would have quelled some of this polarity

You think the first serious black candidate for President losing to a ticket that included Sarah fucking Palin would have quelled some of the polarity in the country?

[Xville]

You think the first serious black candidate for President losing to a ticket that included Sarah fucking Palin would have quelled some of the polarity in the country?

Well, let me rephrase a bit...had McCain not chosen an effing moron for a running mate, I think he would have stood a very good chance at winning the presidency. If he had, yes I believe it would have quelled some of the polarity.

Obama had a chance to quell some of this polarity, but I think in the latter years of his presidency, he caused an even greater divide thru what i stated earlier.

[GoMuskies]

I do agree on Obama. I thought Obama was fine, but I think he was a missed opportunity, particularly on that front. Here was a guy who had lived both the black and white experience in America and was in a unique situation to bridge some of that racial divide. He decided to go a different direction, and that was disappointing (to me).

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Well, let me rephrase a bit...had McCain not chosen an effing moron for a running mate, I think he would have stood a very good chance at winning the presidency. If he had, yes I believe it would have quelled some of the polarity.

Obama had a chance to quell some of this polarity, but I think in the latter years of his presidency, he caused an even greater divide thru what i stated earlier.

Sarah Palin or not, he was not making up 96 electoral votes and 7 points in the final vote. McCain got rolled, all Palin did was distract voters from McCain's previous issues.

I do my best and vote for the best candidates. Often times in Az, they aren't Democrat. Dems tend to send out pretty crappy candidates here as people just don't vote for them. The Senate vote is interesting here. Sinema is a right leaning Democrat. She votes conservative 60% of the time. She could actually win, but it depends who makes it out of the other primary.

[GoMuskies]

I do my best and vote for the best candidates.

I hope you never voted for John Kyl, then. He was the worst.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I hope you never voted for John Kyl, then. He was the worst.

Never McCain (Keating 5), and certainly never Kyle. The opposing candidates were almost always the worst of the worst they could toss out. Sinema could actually be a decent centrist senator. The Pubs are Ward and McSally, both are hardcore Trump republicans. Arpaio is in there, but I have heard from some insiders he is building a campaign coffer to live on. He isn't a serious candidate.

To XVille, if Trump directed Cohen to pay off the Playmate and pornstar for the purpose of influencing the election then yes it's a violation and a crime. With Cohen's penchant for recording phone calls, I wonder if he has one of Trump stating exactly that.

[X-man]

Well, let me rephrase a bit...had McCain not chosen an effing moron for a running mate, I think he would have stood a very good chance at winning the presidency. If he had, yes I believe it would have quelled some of the polarity.

Obama had a chance to quell some of this polarity, but I think in the latter years of his presidency, he caused an even greater divide thru what i stated earlier.
It was pretty well established back in 2008 that McCain had Sarah Palin pushed on him by the neo-con crowd (yes, Bill Kristol) who had the hots for Ms. Palin. McCain was basically told that unless he "chose" Palin, there would be a disastrous floor fight at the Republican Convention that itself would have doomed McCain's candidacy. So McCain got rolled by the pro-Palin crowd, the same group that now comprises much of the never Trump group. How ironic.

[XU 87]

It was pretty well established back in 2008 that McCain had Sarah Palin pushed on him by the neo-con crowd (yes, Bill Kristol) who had the hots for Ms. Palin. McCain was basically told that unless he "chose" Palin, there would be a disastrous floor fight at the Republican Convention that itself would have doomed McCain's candidacy. So McCain got rolled by the pro-Palin crowd, the same group that now comprises much of the never Trump group. How ironic.

Pretty well established? By who? Huffington Post? Where do you come up with this stuff?

But to help you out, Kristol did push for Palin. He didn't threaten a floor fight over her pick "that would have doomed McCain's candidacy". In short, Palin wasn't "forced" upon McCain.

The alleged threatened floor fight was if he picked Joe Lieberman as his VP. The floor fight would have been over Lieberman as VP, not naming some other Republican Presidential candidate.

[Caf]

Does anyone actually believe had McCain not chosen Palin he would have won? Obama was a once in a century candidate for the Democratic Party. Candidates who run because it's "their turn" never win. See: literally every single one.

[GoMuskies]

He picked Palin as a Hail Mary. He was way behind, and she was a chance for him to get a nice bump, which he did when she was announced. Then Katie Couric interviewed her, and Obama went to the tailor to get fitted for his inauguration suit.

The Dems would have been a lot better off using your "their turn" policy though. You'd have had 8 years of Hillary followed by 8 years of Obama if Obama hadn't cut in front of Hillary. He probably would have been a better President with 8 more years of seasoning, too.

[Xville]

Does anyone actually believe had McCain not chosen Palin he would have won? Obama was a once in a century candidate for the Democratic Party. Candidates who run because it's "their turn" never win. See: literally every single one.

Who knows if polls were correct but before the economic bailout and choosing Palin, McCain was neck and neck with Obama and was even ahead in some polls.

[xudash]

He picked Palin as a Hail Mary. He was way behind, and she was a chance for him to get a nice bump, which he did when she was announced. Then Katie Couric interviewed her, and Obama went to the tailor to get fitted for his inauguration suit.

The Dems would have been a lot better off using your "their turn" policy though. You'd have had 8 years of Hillary followed by 8 years of Obama if Obama hadn't cut in front of Hillary. He probably would have been a better President with 8 more years of seasoning, too.

Well, you were on a roll until you lobbed in that sentence. Then again, he could have only gotten better, since he was otherwise an abject failure when he was in office. The consummate politician: big smile, empty suit, teleprompter king, and form over substance with no guts.

[GoMuskies]

Hey, 'dash, "better" is relative. :)

[Xville]

He picked Palin as a Hail Mary. He was way behind, and she was a chance for him to get a nice bump, which he did when she was announced. Then Katie Couric interviewed her, and Obama went to the tailor to get fitted for his inauguration suit.

The Dems would have been a lot better off using your "their turn" policy though. You'd have had 8 years of Hillary followed by 8 years of Obama if Obama hadn't cut in front of Hillary. He probably would have been a better President with 8 more years of seasoning, too.

He was not way behind. Most outlets had him a couple points behind.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

He was not way behind. Most outlets had him a couple points behind.

Regardless, polls aren't overly accurate all the time. Didn't we just learn that? McCain lost by a bunch. Palin, good or bad or reach or not, didn't change that.

[X-man]

Pretty well established? By who? Huffington Post? Where do you come up with this stuff?

But to help you out, Kristol did push for Palin. He didn't threaten a floor fight over her pick "that would have doomed McCain's candidacy". In short, Palin wasn't "forced" upon McCain.

The alleged threatened floor fight was if he picked Joe Lieberman as his VP. The floor fight would have been over Lieberman as VP, not naming some other Republican Presidential candidate.
As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Palin was the neo-con darling, and Kristol led the way over at the Weekly Standard. And the floor fight was predicated on Palin not being picked. I'll grant you that had Lieberman been picked (McCain's preference, BTW), there would have been a floor fight. But this would have occurred had anyone other than Palin been selected. So even though McCain wanted nothing to do with Palin, she was forced upon him by Kristol and his pals.

[XU 87]

As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Palin was the neo-con darling, and Kristol led the way over at the Weekly Standard. And the floor fight was predicated on Palin not being picked. I'll grant you that had Lieberman been picked (McCain's preference, BTW), there would have been a floor fight. But this would have occurred had anyone other than Palin been selected. So even though McCain wanted nothing to do with Palin, she was forced upon him by Kristol and his pals.

Is your source for the above nonsense the same one for your quote that the Inspector General's report found that "Strzok's behavior as an FBI employee was professional and free from bias"?

[GoMuskies]

Palin was announced on August 29, 2008. She was his last "bump", and it did not last long.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[XU 87]

Palin was announced on August 29, 2008. She was his last "bump", and it did not last long.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Damn you. I had already deleted my post after looking at the exact same real clear polling data.

[GoMuskies]

Damn you. I had already deleted my post after looking at the exact same real clear polling data.

I know, but Xville thought the same. Figured I may as well post anyway.

[X-man]

Is your source for the above nonsense the same one for your quote that the Inspector General's report found that "Strzok's behavior as an FBI employee was professional and free from bias"?

Here's one of my sources.... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/27/the-insiders.

[XU 87]

Here's one of my sources.... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/27/the-insiders.

I read the article. It says: 1) Kristol and others pushed for her as VP and 2) there was a threatened floor fight over Lieberman if McCain picked him.

The article does not say 1) that Kristol and others forced McCain to take her or 2) there would be a floor fight at the convention if McCain didn't pick Palin.

So, the article supports what I posted. It doesn't support what you posted.

[noteggs]

All explanations of our current polarity go back to the financial crisis. The tea party and occupy wall street which is now the Bernie Sanders crowd started in response to our handling of that.

Specifically relating to the Republican Party, a President named George Bush signed a massive bailout contradicting their small government stances for the second time in our nations history. This, and specifically the Rick Santelli rant on CNBC, gave birth to the Tea Party. The rest is history.

I would say that would be a big part among others. Even earlier in W’s term, many conservatives also felt Republicans weren’t focused enough on the current debt levels and spending. Tea Party started during the the W presidency for sure and intensified under Obama which branched out after ACA.

Also, you could blame social media in general for today’s polarity intensification. Heck who thought there would be a 70 year old sending idiotic tweets. So yes, Trump has added to the division but not the whole reason.