Why Biden/Harris will win

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Speaking of Lincoln  reminds me of his words.

Except Lincoln never said that.  Damn people need to stop believing everything they see on the internet.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-prosperity-quote/

[AUDub 11,153]

52 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except Lincoln never said that.  Damn people need to stop believing everything they see on the internet.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-prosperity-quote/

Guy chairing a school board incapable of doing a basic fact check. Color me shocked. 

[Mikey 16,614]

On 8/18/2020 at 3:37 PM, SocialCircle said:

There is nothing similar about it.  

Agreed. Comparing trickle-down economics and the repression of big government is loony.

[Mikey 16,614]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except Lincoln never said that.  Damn people need to stop believing everything they see on the internet.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-prosperity-quote/

Well then, kudos to The Rev. William John Henry Boetcker.

[SocialCircle 570]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except Lincoln never said that.  Damn people need to stop believing everything they see on the internet.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-prosperity-quote/

Thanks! I’ve always seen this attributed to Lincoln in multiple places. I strongly believe in these words and I stand corrected and thank the good Rev. for them. 

[SocialCircle 570]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

Guy chairing a school board incapable of doing a basic fact check. Color me shocked. 

My apologies and my mistake. I’ve seen this attributed to Lincoln in so many different places I didn’t think it was necessary to check. I’m glad someone pointed it out as I strongly believe in these words. Thanks be to the good Rev. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

9 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

You and Brad simply ignored the first article I posted as it relates to how low wage earners have fared under Trump. Here is more info for you. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/02/minimum-wage-increases-fueling-faster-wage-growth-those-bottom/%3foutputType=amp

The Trump White House and Washington policymakers have touted the tight labor market as the main engine driving gains for the working class, but a Washington Post analysis of Labor Department data suggests that paychecks also grew because of a nationwide movement of rising minimum wages in various states and cities over the past couple of years."

This was going to be my question.  What data shows that any specific Trump policy or set of policies caused this?  The data suggests that minimum wage increases instituted by law in various states has more to do with it:

Sure enough, the data suggests that people are not just getting paid more because there is more competition for their services. They are getting paid more because laws now require employers to pay them more.

But when you break those low-wage workers into two groups — those who live in states that have raised their minimum wage in the past three years and those in states that have not — the relationship between policy changes and wage gains becomes clearer. Our analysis of Labor Department data shows that before 2016, wages for lower-paid workers rose across the country at more or less the same pace. In 2017, things began to change. Wage growth in states that increased minimum wages began to accelerate.

Over the past year, paychecks for those in bottom 25 percent of the workforce grew almost 1.5 times as fast as those in states where the minimum wage did not budge. 

 

[SocialCircle 570]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The Trump White House and Washington policymakers have touted the tight labor market as the main engine driving gains for the working class, but a Washington Post analysis of Labor Department data suggests that paychecks also grew because of a nationwide movement of rising minimum wages in various states and cities over the past couple of years."

This was going to be my question.  What data shows that any specific Trump policy or set of policies caused this?  The data suggests that minimum wage increases instituted by law in various states has more to do with it:

Sure enough, the data suggests that people are not just getting paid more because there is more competition for their services. They are getting paid more because laws now require employers to pay them more.

But when you break those low-wage workers into two groups — those who live in states that have raised their minimum wage in the past three years and those in states that have not — the relationship between policy changes and wage gains becomes clearer. Our analysis of Labor Department data shows that before 2016, wages for lower-paid workers rose across the country at more or less the same pace. In 2017, things began to change. Wage growth in states that increased minimum wages began to accelerate.

Over the past year, paychecks for those in bottom 25 percent of the workforce grew almost 1.5 times as fast as those in states where the minimum wage did not budge. 

 

So pre-COVID not only did we have a record number in the job force with employment rates lower than in decades with the stock market climbing, but we also had lower wages increasing faster than it had it years. Also, as it relates to my little town, we had record low vacancies for business locations and record tax revenues. To put this in perspective when Trump took office our school system was receiving an average of around $85,000 per month from SPLOST. Just prior to COVID we were averaging about $130,000 per month from this local sales tax. Even now we are receiving about $115,00 on average since April until now. The Trump policies have worked for our community. 

[TexasTiger 12,943]

3 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

So pre-COVID not only did we have a record number in the job force with employment rates lower than in decades with the stock market climbing, but we also had lower wages increasing faster than it had it years. Also, as it relates to my little town, we had record low vacancies for business locations and record tax revenues. To put this in perspective when Trump took office our school system was receiving an average of around $85,000 per month from SPLOST. Just prior to COVID we were averaging about $130,000 per month from this local sales tax. Even now we are receiving about $115,00 on average since April until now. The Trump policies have worked for our community. 

Hyper economic stimulus thru huge deficits has short-term benefits, no doubt! That’s why we need leaders concerned about the long-term.

[aubiefifty 16,803]

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

Guy chairing a school board incapable of doing a basic fact check. Color me shocked. 

cj is the gift that just keeps on giving.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Hyper economic stimulus thru huge deficits has short-term benefits, no doubt! That’s why we need leaders concerned about the long-term.

Exactly what I've been saying.  This all has a cost and that cost has been running up the debt and deficit.  Republican lawmakers have been using that playbook for the better part of 40 years.  It's extremely short-sighted.

[Mikey 16,614]

26 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Hyper economic stimulus thru huge deficits has short-term benefits, no doubt! That’s why we need leaders concerned about the long-term.

So, you were against any stimulus spending due to the virus? No increased unemployment benefits, no billions to states to spend to minimize the effects of the pandemic?

[Mikey 16,614]

16 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Exactly what I've been saying.  This all has a cost and that cost has been running up the debt and deficit.  Republican lawmakers have been using that playbook for the better part of 40 years.  It's extremely short-sighted.

Obama's "shovel ready jobs" fiasco and the 500 million Solyndra scam were the fault of Republicans ?  Who knew?

[SocialCircle 570]

46 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Hyper economic stimulus thru huge deficits has short-term benefits, no doubt! That’s why we need leaders concerned about the long-term.

I agree with you as it relates to the deficit.  This is the biggest reason I supported Kasich in the R primary in 2016. I also felt he had the best chance of unifying this country among those on both sides running.  Both candidates this time are big spenders no doubt.  

[SocialCircle 570]

23 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Exactly what I've been saying.  This all has a cost and that cost has been running up the debt and deficit.  Republican lawmakers have been using that playbook for the better part of 40 years.  It's extremely short-sighted.

Both parties consist of big spenders.  Both candidates running this time are big spenders. Big spending is bipartisan. Democrats are just as guilty as most Republicans.  

[SocialCircle 570]

34 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Exactly what I've been saying.  This all has a cost and that cost has been running up the debt and deficit.  Republican lawmakers have been using that playbook for the better part of 40 years.  It's extremely short-sighted.

It is funny you equate and believe doing anything for 40 years is "short-sighted."  

[SocialCircle 570]

41 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

cj is the gift that just keeps on giving.

I thought this was the serious board.  Welcome to the Jelly of the Month Club Clark. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

19 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Both parties consist of big spenders.  Both candidates running this time are big spenders. Big spending is bipartisan. Democrats are just as guilty as most Republicans.  

Only one party runs up the deficit when in power.  It's been shown by me in this thread several times now.

Dems are often paying the interest on Republican spending.

[TexasTiger 12,943]

25 minutes ago, Mikey said:

So, you were against any stimulus spending due to the virus? No increased unemployment benefits, no billions to states to spend to minimize the effects of the pandemic?

No. Deficit spending is necessary during a crisis. Where entities (governments or individuals) get in trouble is in running up huge deficits during “great” economic times. If I’m making $200,000 but have a $300,000 a year lifestyle and spending habits, that’s the problem.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

It is funny you equate and believe doing anything for 40 years is "short-sighted."  

Well let's see here, Republicans haven't had power for all 40.  When in power, they crank up the deficit for short term gains.  When they're not in power, a longer term, deficit cutting approach happens.

See how that works?

[TexasTiger 12,943]

11 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

It is funny you equate and believe doing anything for 40 years is "short-sighted."  

It began with Reagan. We briefly hit the pause button under Clinton. Bush unleashed it again. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Obama's "shovel ready jobs" fiasco and the 500 million Solyndra scam were the fault of Republicans ?  Who knew?

Obama cut the deficit in half during his time in office.  Try again.

[Mikey 16,614]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

No. Deficit spending is necessary during a crisis. Where entities (governments or individuals) get in trouble is in running up huge deficits during “great” economic times. If I’m making $200,000 but have a $300,000 a year lifestyle and spending habits, that’s the problem.

1 huge part of that deficit has been the seemingly endless mid-east wars. Let's bring 'em home and spend the money on roads and bridges.

[Mikey 16,614]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Obama cut the deficit in half during his time in office.  Try again.

A not-quite so artful dodge of the point.

[TexasTiger 12,943]

48 minutes ago, Mikey said:

1 huge part of that deficit has been the seemingly endless mid-east wars. Let's bring 'em home and spend the money on roads and bridges.

I’m for that. It’s not enough.