What would it take?

[punch it in]

Bannon is in the room because Trump wants him there. So who is the bigger idiot? The idiot or the guy who takes advice from the idiot?
And thank God my wife is on the same page. I would hate to have to explain to my daughter that Daddy has to leave. Lol. Joking. Or maybe not? Well like I said thank God she is on my side.
The fact that Trump does not see what we see in Bannon is a bigger concern than Bannon himself. He either agrees with the guy or he is oblivious. Either way it is a dangerous observation about the dude.

[Schneed10]

Can't disagree. That's as objective as it gets. I couldn't pick a better SecDef myself than Mattis. Haley will be great at the UN. The others, DeVos in particular, make no sense.

[Schneed10]

I guess my concern would be how do you set a living wage at a level that ensures a minimum safety net, yet doesn't completely remove all incentive to perform jobs that barely clear the minimum wage?

Let's say you give your guaranteed living wage of $400 per week (equivalent to $10 per hour at 40 hours). Do you create a moral hazard where bus drivers and EMTs and countless other folks in similar positions say you know what I'd rather sit at home because the couple extra bucks aren't worth it?

And my second concern would be, damn, it would take a very highly graduated tax bracket structure to pay for this. The Netherlands used to have its highest tax bracket set at 72% prior to 1990, but since moved it down to 52%. Not sure how they pay for everything in their system, but I do know that if your top tax bracket is too high you have a way of squelching innovation.

How can we get stats on the number of new products, new life-saving medical advancements and drugs, come from the Netherlands? Because that to me is the crux of the whole thing. Investing in a new idea takes immense guts and risk, both personal and financial, and there needs to be immense reward on the other side of it. Without that reward it's quite obvious that fewer people would take the risk on new ideas.

So I'm not sure, but I'd have concerns about anything that raises the top tax bracket too high. The immense financial reward available in the US is the carrot dangling in front of a lot of scientific and medical advancements.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I guess my concern would be how do you set a living wage at a level that ensures a minimum safety net, yet doesn't completely remove all incentive to perform jobs that barely clear the minimum wage?

Let's say you give your guaranteed living wage of $400 per week (equivalent to $10 per hour at 40 hours). Do you create a moral hazard where bus drivers and EMTs and countless other folks in similar positions say you know what I'd rather sit at home because the couple extra bucks aren't worth it?

And my second concern would be, damn, it would take a very highly graduated tax bracket structure to pay for this. The Netherlands used to have its highest tax bracket set at 72% prior to 1990, but since moved it down to 52%. Not sure how they pay for everything in their system, but I do know that if your top tax bracket is too high you have a way of squelching innovation.

How can we get stats on the number of new products, new life-saving medical advancements and drugs, come from the Netherlands? Because that to me is the crux of the whole thing. Investing in a new idea takes immense guts and risk, both personal and financial, and there needs to be immense reward on the other side of it. Without that reward it's quite obvious that fewer people would take the risk on new ideas.

So I'm not sure, but I'd have concerns about anything that raises the top tax bracket too high. The immense financial reward available in the US is the carrot dangling in front of a lot of scientific and medical advancements.

I don't know, but maybe tax rates ought to be based on how many multiples of the living wage your gross individual income is. if living wage is 20,000 as an example, and you earn 20,000 apart from living wage, you have 1 multiple of living wage. 200,000 = 10 multiples, etc etc. So one scale would be something like:

100000+ you keep .1% or 2million as a minimum and up
10000-99999 you keep 1% or 2million as a minimum up to 20 million
1000-9999 you keep 10% or 2million as a minimum up to 20million
100-999 you keep 20% or 400k up to 3.98 million
50-99 you keep 30% or 300k up to 600,000
25-49 multiples you keep 70% so earn 500k, keep 350,000
10-24 multiples you keep 85% so earn 200k, keep 170,000
1-10 multiples you keep 95% so a minimum yearly life would be 39,000 (base 20000+19000).


In addition, you charge all company's regardless of size a 5% living wage tax.

Again, no idea whether any of these numbers work, which of course means I just wasted about 15-20 minutes making this crud up, because I must like to see myself type.

I do think something like this, along with getting rid of minimum wage, and alot of bureaucracy around thousands of different government welfare programs would have a tremendous effect on the economy. I think it would be positive. (oh and if you waste the 20,000 and look for more handouts we let Achmed handle it)

of course 20,000 is a number, I don't know what that really is, but it wouldn't take a cray supercomputer to figure it out.

[CRedskinsRule]

just adding this about LW.

9% of the population makes over $100K/yr according to this link

Assuming that the LW was only given to US Citizens making under $100k per year, the yearly outlay for LW payments is roughly 4.4 trillion dollars.

Reducing it to only people making under $50k would still be 3.5 trillion dollars ($20K * 176Million people)

The US GDP for 2016 was $18trillion.
Federal Gross Spending was $3.9 trillion dollars

Government Pensions $1.3 trillion
Government Health Care + $1.5 trillion
Government Education + $1.0 trillion
National Defense + $0.8 trillion
Government Welfare + $0.5 trillion
All Other Spending + $1.6 trillion
Total Government Spending $6.7 trillion

So theoretically if we got rid of the myriad of welfare/education/healthcare governmental entities, and rolled it one lump sum governmental LW block grant to the states, we would go from $3Trillion, to $3.5Trillion.

Could you imagine the shift of power that would create politically

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

just adding this about LW.

9% of the population makes over $100K/yr according to this link

Assuming that the LW was only given to US Citizens making under $100k per year, the yearly outlay for LW payments is roughly 4.4 trillion dollars.

Reducing it to only people making under $50k would still be 3.5 trillion dollars ($20K * 176Million people)

The US GDP for 2016 was $18trillion.
Federal Gross Spending was $3.9 trillion dollars

Government Pensions $1.3 trillion
Government Health Care + $1.5 trillion
Government Education + $1.0 trillion
National Defense + $0.8 trillion
Government Welfare + $0.5 trillion
All Other Spending + $1.6 trillion
Total Government Spending $6.7 trillion

So theoretically if we got rid of the myriad of welfare/education/healthcare governmental entities, and rolled it one lump sum governmental LW block grant to the states, we would go from $3Trillion, to $3.5Trillion.

Could you imagine the shift of power that would create politically

You'd still have to provide the healthcare on top of living wage. $20K per year gets you bare essentials like shelter and food, but not healthcare. Those folks would still need Medical Assistance.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You'd still have to provide the healthcare on top of living wage. $20K per year gets you bare essentials like shelter and food, but not healthcare. Those folks would still need Medical Assistance.

There would have to be a way to create a real LW wage number. I used 20K for ease of numbers, but yes LW would need to include shelter, food, and very basic healthcare entitlement.

The point of the LW is that you have basic security needs met (the bottom of the pyramid), but you are still working. Currently nearly 50% of the US population makes under $25K(same link as before). If minimum wage were reset to $4/hour and still assuming a $20K LW then every person in the US working a 40hr job would make $27.5K (with the tax scheme i made up). And a person making $10/hour would make nearly $40K.

LW for 1 person $800/mo rent, $400/mo food, $400/mo basic healthcare =$1600/month or 19,200 per year,
so 2 adults together, would have 1600/mo rent, 800/month food 800/mo basic healthcare

again, theory is simple, and talking in a forum blog is even simpler. The deepest fact is that politicians would never give up all the power they have by controlling the purse strings.

One thing I would add is that as a back check, in order to be given your 2017 LW you must provide proof that you used some or all of your 2016 LW to provide you with stable residence, and healthcare. I would think rental receipts and insurance payment stubs would do that but of course the devil is always in the details.

[NC_Skins]

I think we should take this time for a moment of silence for all those lives lost at Bowling Green. A go fund has been started for all the families affected by this tragedy. #NeverForget

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I think we should take this time for a moment of silence for all those lives lost at Bowling Green. A go fund has been started for all the families affected by this tragedy. #NeverForget



https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

Best part is her excuse. I meant to say....stfu. You remembered something about bowling green something or the other and a terrorist attack, so you bring up the bowling green massacre. Wow. I thought the confusion about Frederick Douglass was bad but this takes the cake for this weeks show folks. Stay tuned for more amateur hour at the Apollo! As much as I enjoy the "entertainment", it's pretty God damned scary that these people are in charge of our country.

[CRedskinsRule]

CNN/ORC poll

How well are things going in the country today -- (very well, fairly well), (pretty badly or very badly)?

results from the poll the year after election
2017 Jan 31 - Feb 2, 46% 53% Obama --> Trump
2013 Jan 14-15, 49% 51% Obama --> Obama
2009 Feb 18-19 21% 79% Bush --> Obama
2005 Jan 7-9 58 41 Bush-->Bush
2001 Feb 7-8 71 28 Clinton -->Bush

I can't imagine the country being at 71% positive anymore.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

CNN/ORC poll



How well are things going in the country today -- (very well, fairly well), (pretty badly or very badly)?



results from the poll the year after election

2017 Jan 31 - Feb 2, 46% 53% Obama --> Trump

2013 Jan 14-15, 49% 51% Obama --> Obama

2009 Feb 18-19 21% 79% Bush --> Obama

2005 Jan 7-9 58 41 Bush-->Bush

2001 Feb 7-8 71 28 Clinton -->Bush



I can't imagine the country being at 71% positive anymore.

R u reading that as the incumbent has something to do with those numbers so quickly or a result of the past potus? It appears as if Trump has raised the spirits of the voters the way that is laid out.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

R u reading that as the incumbent has something to do with those numbers so quickly or a result of the past potus? It appears as if Trump has raised the spirits of the voters the way that is laid out.

no, sorry I hate tables.

Thats the total positive and total negative in the country as close to the inauguration (but not before it) each time.
So in this year's case the country right now is at a 46 positive or very positive and 53 negative or very negative.

When Pres Obama took over from Pres Bush at the same time frame, the country was 21 positive, and 79 negative, and through his two terms he did bring it up and it has hovered around 50/50 through the last 8 years.

But after Clinton's 2 terms leading into Bush's first term, the country was 71% positive - those are days I miss, when not every story was a negative bashing the other side relentlessy.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

no, sorry I hate tables.



Thats the total positive and total negative in the country as close to the inauguration (but not before it) each time.

So in this year's case the country right now is at a 46 positive or very positive and 53 negative or very negative.



When Pres Obama took over from Pres Bush at the same time frame, the country was 21 positive, and 79 negative, and through his two terms he did bring it up and it has hovered around 50/50 through the last 8 years.



But after Clinton's 2 terms leading into Bush's first term, the country was 71% positive - those are days I miss, when not every story was a negative bashing the other side relentlessy.

Trump is a lightning rod, and he wants to be. For whatever reason. This time is different on every level. The bashing is no coincidence. His backers have his back at any cost, and his doubters look for every reason to doubt. Both sides need to take a deep breath and step back. However every time you think things are settling down he does something cra cra. Its like he craves the madness. I don't get it.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

no, sorry I hate tables.



Thats the total positive and total negative in the country as close to the inauguration (but not before it) each time.

So in this year's case the country right now is at a 46 positive or very positive and 53 negative or very negative.



When Pres Obama took over from Pres Bush at the same time frame, the country was 21 positive, and 79 negative, and through his two terms he did bring it up and it has hovered around 50/50 through the last 8 years.



But after Clinton's 2 terms leading into Bush's first term, the country was 71% positive - those are days I miss, when not every story was a negative bashing the other side relentlessy.

Gotcha.
Yeah well Trump and unity are like oil and water. We can stir and stir until our arms fall off but,.....

[CRedskinsRule]

I can't argue with much of what Uncle Bernie says here:

...
And yet, he said, being in the majority is not enough. “Let me suggest to you, and some will disagree with me, that’s OK too. Let me suggest to you that what happened on November 8th, Trump’s victory, was not a victory for Trump or his ideology. It was a gross political failure of the Democratic Party.”

This won Sanders a partial standing ovation.

“Some people may disagree with me, but if you think that everybody who voted for Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist or a homophobe, you would be dead wrong,” Sanders said. Instead, he said, what happened is that “hardworking decent people” had a lot of questions about their lives, about long hours and poor wages and their declining standard of living and school debt and Wall Street destroying the economy.

“So Trump comes along, and Trump is, among many other qualities, a pathological liar. So bad that he practically has no ideology at all. Tomorrow he may come out for a single health care payer program, I don’t know. He doesn’t believe in anything. It’s just what sounds right at the moment,” Sanders said.

But what Trump did do, “if you listen carefully to what he said, he said, ‘I, Donald Trump, I’m going to take on the establishment,’” Sanders said.

He won because “there are people in this country who are hurting, and they are hurting terribly,” Sanders said. “And for years they looked to the Democratic Party, which at one time was the party of working people. And they looked and they looked and they looked and they got nothing in return, and out of desperation they turned to Mr. Trump.”

“All over this country there are people who are hurting, and our job is to communicate and talk to and stand up and fight with those people for a government that listens to them,” he said.

“It is always easy to come to beautiful conferences like this, where we look to our friends over here, friends over there, and we’re all in basic agreement,” he counseled. “It is a hell of a lot harder to start talking to people who have a worldview very different than yours. But that is exactly what we have to do.”

...

Sanders encouraged conference attendees to run for office, especially school boards, city councils and state legislatures. “To people who don’t have confidence to run for office … I’m a member of the Senate. You should see some of the Senate. If you have any doubt about your ability to run for office, turn on C-SPAN,” he joked.