Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's really spinning his trolling gears as you can't Ad-hom an AI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
All actual military are offended when someone embellishes their military career for personal gain. I don't think I told you what I actually did in the military?
Remember when I found out who you were and told Barney to consider letting you know what information you gave that led me to that conclusion?
Yes and thanks. He let me delete the post so nobody else found out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The sentence in question, spoken in 2018, was:
Pretty sure it's also misrepresenting his rank, which he never earned.
Combat and Weapons Carrying: Tim Walz has mentioned in the past that he carried a weapon while serving in the military, which has led to some scrutiny. Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard and was deployed to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. However, his role during that deployment was not in a direct combat position but rather in a support capacity as a Command Sergeant Major. Critics have questioned whether his statements about carrying a weapon might give the impression that he was engaged in frontline combat, which has led to some debate about the accuracy and context of his remarks.
Rank of E-9: Walz achieved the rank of Command Sergeant Major (E-9) before retiring. However, there was some controversy because after his retirement, his rank was administratively reduced to Master Sergeant (E-8) due to his not completing the required coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. This reduction meant that, for benefits and official records, his final rank was Master Sergeant, and not an E-9. Many have viewed his earlier statements about retiring as a Command Sergeant Major as misleading, given the post-retirement adjustment and demotion.
Created:
Posted in:
It's posts like these that give me comfort on the reality of incompetent doxxers. That incompetence usually goes hand in hand with being a stolen valor larper who gets themselves banned on a liberal chat site.
Created:
Posted in:
The claim that standards of living have increased under Biden simply because median income is higher now than it was under Trump, is misleading. While it's true that nominal median income may have risen, this figure alone doesn't provide a complete picture of the economic reality for most Americans. Inflation plays a critical role in determining real income, which is the income adjusted for the cost of living. Even if nominal income is higher, if inflation outpaces this increase, the purchasing power of that income is reduced, meaning that people can afford less with their earnings than they could before.
Moreover, the impact of inflation has been significant during the Biden administration, particularly in essential areas like housing, food, and energy. These are expenses that disproportionately affect lower and middle-income households. As prices for these necessities have risen sharply, any gains in median income may not translate into a better standard of living. In fact, many households may find themselves worse off, despite higher nominal wages, because their increased income doesn't keep pace with the rising cost of everyday goods and services.
Additionally, focusing solely on median income ignores the broader context of economic inequality and distribution. Median income is just one measure and can be skewed by significant income gains among higher earners, masking the reality for many lower-income families. If wage gains are concentrated at the top, the median income figure may rise, but this doesn’t necessarily reflect an overall improvement in living standards for the majority of people. To truly assess changes in the standard of living, it’s crucial to consider not just median income but also how evenly those income gains are distributed, how inflation is affecting purchasing power, and how other economic factors, like job security and debt levels, are impacting households.
AI owns u bro.
Created:
Laissez faire would return us to the Gilded Age
AI debunked this.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The U.S. government is the largest monopsony in terms of having multiple suppliers bid for massive projects. Far larger than Amazon, McDonalds, or WalMart. The government distorts the market far more than those large players. Examples: prices of college education, price of energy, price of bombs and guns...
And the labor for all those associated industries are vastly over inflated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The only people who mistake getting inflation back under control (which it currently is)....
Great, we burned down the house, but we were the ones that put the fire out!!(which it currently is)...so re-elect us, Chud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, wage growth did not consistently outpace inflation in all months following April 2023. While there have been periods where wages grew faster than inflation, this trend has not been uniform or consistent across all months. Economic data from mid-2023 shows that there were fluctuations in both wage growth and inflation rates, meaning that in some months, wages did indeed rise faster than inflation, while in other months, inflation either matched or exceeded wage growth.
For example, certain months might show a temporary spike in inflation due to factors like rising energy prices or supply chain disruptions, which can outpace wage growth during those times. Similarly, wage growth can be influenced by various factors such as changes in labor demand, shifts in the job market, or policy interventions, leading to uneven patterns over time.
Therefore, while there may have been instances where wages grew faster than inflation, it would be inaccurate to say that this has been the case consistently in all months since April 2023.
While it’s true that there have been periods where nominal wages increased more than inflation, this trend has not been consistent across all months. Economic data from mid-2023 shows fluctuations in both wage growth and inflation rates. In some months, wages may have outpaced inflation, but in others, inflation either matched or exceeded wage growth, indicating a more nuanced situation than the claim suggests.
Moreover, even in months where wage growth did outpace inflation, the overall impact on workers’ purchasing power might not be as significant as the claim implies. High inflation over an extended period has already eroded much of the value of wage increases, leaving many workers struggling to keep up with the rising costs of essentials like housing, food, and energy. The cumulative effects of inflation mean that many workers are still feeling the pinch, despite nominal wage gains, and may not see a substantial improvement in their financial situation.
Additionally, wage growth has not been evenly distributed across all sectors or income levels. Higher-income workers in certain industries might be seeing larger wage increases, while many low- and middle-income workers could experience little to no real wage growth. This disparity exacerbates economic inequality and undermines the idea that overall wage growth is effectively benefiting all workers. The claim, therefore, paints an overly optimistic picture that doesn’t fully account for the varied and uneven economic experiences of workers in different sectors and income brackets. For example, an airline pilot might have doubled his pay where a MAGA voter may have seen little to no wage increases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
"Don't care, still voting for Trump" is a national sentiment mostly due to inflation, open borders, and declining standards of living.
Created:
-->
@thett3
"Don't care, still voting for Trump" is a national sentiment mostly due to inflation, open borders, and declining standards of living.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Because nobody would have kids if not.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Evolution demands it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ukraine will retake the Donbas any day now. No doubts.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
But the cleanest countries are exactly those where government imposed regulations to save environment.
Like Paris?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You argue for careless pollution, trash capitalism, mindless consumerism,
The government has regulated all of those things. Today, you can't swim in the river of any over-regulated city in the world because the government gets to decide what pollution is, and the government is controlled by lobbies. If you want to live in a clean city, don't allow government to stop you from cleaning it up. I recently visited Canada and there are a fuckton of regulations over the use of water. The end result is some official declared geese to be a sacred animal. Now overpopulated geese have deposited enough goosepoop in the lakes as to make it undrinkable, unswimmable and unfishable. A Canada goose poops about 28 times a day, producing up to 2 lbs. of droppings daily! Goose poop can contaminate lake water with bacteria like E. coli and Salmonella.
In a free society or benevolent dictatorship, those geese would take a back seat to humans.
Arguing for continuing the oligarchy of elites is asking for more of the same pollution.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Well there is more future people on the planet than current people. We have like what? 7 billion, well there are trillions of future people and when making a policy position it is more ethical to make a decision that positively effects those 10 trillion people than to in the short term care about the effects on a mere 7 billion or so.
The determinant on whether longtermism is adopted or not is completely dependent on the variable of the legacy of physical progeny. This is why anti-gibbers are so against the rule of beta boy incels and cat ladies.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Survival of the fittest doesnt work when you reward retards who make stupid careless decisions, but punish the guy who made a smart decision.
America has had a progressive tax system doing exactly that, and look how fit America is now!
Created:
you cant spell fascist dictator regulator without FDR.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The assumption that all young voters or college-educated individuals align with Democratic ideals ignores the growing segment of these groups that lean towards Republican or independent views. Many young voters, particularly those concerned with issues like economic freedom, inflation, or skepticism towards government overreach, have increasingly found themselves at odds with the Democratic platform.
Moreover, the idea that diversity automatically equates to Democratic support is increasingly challenged by recent voting trends. For instance, Republicans have made significant inroads with Hispanic and Black voters, particularly among working-class individuals who may prioritize economic issues or hold more conservative social values. The narrative that Democrats are the sole party of diverse voters fails to capture these shifts, where traditional racial and ethnic alignments are becoming more fluid and issue-driven, especially on immigration and inflation issues.
Finally, while education level has historically correlated with Democratic support, this too is evolving. Many college-educated voters are not a monolithic bloc; for instance, voters with degrees in business or STEM fields might prioritize different issues than those in the humanities, grievance majors, or social sciences. Additionally, Republicans have been gaining traction among non-college-educated voters, who make up a significant portion of the electorate, reflecting a broader realignment where economic concerns and cultural issues are increasingly driving political affiliation beyond the simple dichotomy of educational attainment.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
ironically such behavior must inevitably lead to something more of the holy grail of communism "worker ownership of the means of production".
That's certainly better than the current system where the worker surrenders 25% of his production to a bloated federal government as a form of indulgence to the deity.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It's all about vibez.
Created:
Created:
-->
@WyIted
it was the Republicans who objected to how the bill would be paid for.
Weird that a party would think inflation could jeopardize their cushy government jerbz.
Created:
That’s nonsense. Nobody would characterize the Gilded Age as a heavily regulated business environment.
AI did. You must be smarter than AI. Or maybe Uno reverse card. Flip a coin?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
During the Gilded Age, the economy was not a free market. While there were scant elements of free-market capitalism, the period was also marked by significant government intervention.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
We have seen what Capitalism looks like without government intervention. It was called the Gilded Age and it included a cycle of booms and busts and a low standard of living for workers
During the Gilded Age, the economy was not a free market. While there were scant elements of free-market capitalism, the period was also marked by significant government intervention, often shaped by the interests of the wealthy industrialists, known as "robber barons." These powerful businessmen frequently used their vast resources to influence crony government policies and regulations in their favor.
Robber barons purchased influence through political contributions, bribery, and by establishing close relationships with government officials. This allowed them to secure favorable regulations, subsidies, and tariffs that protected their monopolies and furthered their economic dominance. As a result, the market was skewed in favor of these large corporations, undermining true free-market competition.
So, while the Gilded Age had few elements of a free market, it was mainly characterized by significant cronyism, where the government often enacted policies that benefited the wealthy elite at the expense of fair competition and the broader public interest.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
He agrees with the establishment that there's a "labor shortage" only when he is told that illegal migration is necessary.
There's no deeper thinking going on in that head than that.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Paul Krugman has indeed argued that what some describe as a "labor shortage" is much more accurately a situation where employers are not offering high enough wages to attract workers. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist, has written about so-called "labor shortages" and replaced it with the idea that employers can address labor by offering higher wages. In his writings, Krugman often argues that what is sometimes perceived as a "labor shortage" is actually a reflection of employers not offering competitive wages or working conditions to attract workers.
In some of his articles, particularly during discussions about labor markets in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, Krugman has pointed out that if businesses are struggling to find workers, it may be because they are not paying enough. He suggests that increasing wages is a natural way to attract more workers, rather than labeling the situation as a labor shortage.
Krugman's argument is based on basic economic principles: when there is a high demand for workers, wages should rise to attract more people into the labor market. If wages remain stagnant while the demand for labor is high, fewer people will be willing to take those jobs, which might be mistakenly interpreted as a labor shortage.
This perspective is consistent with his broader views on labor markets and income inequality, where he often emphasizes the need for higher wages to ensure fair compensation and to reduce disparities in the economy.
If someone refers to Paul Krugman as an "idiot," it's important to approach the situation with a tone that fosters constructive dialogue rather than escalating the disagreement. First, it's useful to acknowledge that strong opinions about public figures like Krugman are common, especially given his prominent role in economic debates. Understanding the frustration behind their statement can help set the stage for a more productive conversation. For example, you might say, "I see that you strongly disagree with Krugman’s views, and that’s completely valid."
Next, it’s beneficial to steer the conversation away from personal attacks and focus on the substance of the arguments being made. By shifting the focus to the ideas rather than the individual, you encourage a more respectful and thoughtful discussion. You might suggest, "Instead of labeling him, it might be more useful to discuss the specific points Krugman makes and why you find them unconvincing. That way, we can really dig into the issues at hand."
Finally, it’s helpful to remind them that Krugman is a highly respected economist, regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions. His insights are grounded in years of research and experience, which makes his perspectives valuable, even if controversial. You could add, "While it’s okay to disagree with Krugman, it’s important to remember that he’s a Nobel Prize-winning economist with a lot of expertise. Critiquing his ideas with evidence and reasoned arguments can lead to a more meaningful discussion than dismissing him outright." This approach encourages critical thinking and a more respectful exchange of ideas.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Clearly, you do not have pink hair.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That still doesn't explain Biden's obvious lie about "lowering the temperature"
Do you think he was forced out by his own party over that lie?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I think the strategic oil reserves are also depleted as well. Mismanagement, but at least he beat medicare (finally)
Created:
While it's true that the economy has shown signs of strength under President Biden, particularly with job growth and wage increases, it's important to consider the full context, especially the impact of inflation. Over the past few years, wages have risen as businesses compete for workers in a tight labor market, and this is often cited as a sign of economic resilience. However, these wage increases have been largely offset by the rapid rise in prices across the board. Inflation has surged to levels not seen in decades, eroding the purchasing power of those wage gains and making it difficult for many Americans to keep up with the cost of living.
As prices for essential goods and services like food, housing, and energy have skyrocketed, the burden on everyday consumers has become increasingly heavy. Even those who have seen their paychecks grow are finding that their money doesn't stretch as far as it used to. The cost of living has outpaced wage growth for many, leaving people frustrated and struggling to maintain their standard of living. This situation has led to widespread dissatisfaction, cutting across political and cultural lines, to the point where even those who might not typically voice economic concerns—like individuals in more progressive circles—are expressing their frustrations.
The reality is that while wage increases are a positive development, they haven't been sufficient to offset the cumulative damage caused by high inflation. The cost of everyday necessities has risen so sharply that any gains workers have made in their paychecks are quickly swallowed up by higher prices. This dynamic has left many feeling as though they're running just to stay in place, a sentiment that is fueling discontent across a broad spectrum of society and most troubling, the pink haired voters.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
did you beat medicare too?
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Bingo
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Inflation was never a problem for those not drowning in debt. Even when it spiked to 9 percent under Biden.
Now the problem is paying off all that debt. Americans now have over a trillion in personal debt to credit card banks.
Created:
he finally beat medicare
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Someone needs to tell all these Biden supporters that he already announced his retirement from politics and is coasting to a planned retirement date.
Created:
Gas is basically the same price now as it was under Trump.
Let's break down why the statement "Gas is basically the same price now as it was under Trump" is factually not accurate.
First, if we look at historical gas prices during Donald Trump's presidency (2017-2021), the average price per gallon generally ranged between $2.20 and $2.60, with notable dips below $2 in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This drop was largely because of decreased demand as the economy slowed and travel was limited.
In contrast, since President Biden took office in January 2021, gas prices have generally been higher. By mid-2021, gas prices rose above $3 per gallon, and by 2022, they spiked even further, surpassing $4 per gallon in many areas. This increase was driven by a combination of factors, including the global recovery from the pandemic, supply chain issues, inflationary pressures, and geopolitical events like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which disrupted global oil supplies. These factors led to a significant rise in oil prices, which directly impacted gas prices at the pump. While there have been fluctuations, the average gas price under Biden has consistently been higher than during Trump's tenure.
Therefore, the assertion that gas prices are "basically the same now as they were under Trump" doesn't hold up when we examine the actual data. The reality is that gas prices have been higher during the Biden administration compared to the average prices seen during Trump's presidency.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created:
This is the same crap as saying Biden created the most increases in job wages while neglecting to include the fact that everything is soo fkn expensive right now that even pink haired people ae upset.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
OK OK you win too. Putin does care apparently.
I stand corrected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
why ty sir. You are a gem as well my pink haired friendo.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
OMG, how do you know Democrats don't care about gas prices either.
You win.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Putin actually doesn't care if America gets cheap gas or continues to pay almost double than they paid under Obama and Trump.
OMG, Democrats don't care about gas prices either.
You win.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"We broke the economy, but at the last minute we adopted the policies of the right-tribe so there is no reason for you to vote for the right-tribe which was opposed to breaking the economy from the start"Similar to the border narrative
Step 1: Create problem
Step 2: Blame
Step 3 : Pretend to fix problem
Step 4: ???
Step 5: PROFIT!
Created: