Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(07-14-2019, 09:56 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I also like Andrew Yang.

Me too. He is going to give me $1,000 a month for simply having a pulse and also provide free healthcare for illegal aliens.

(07-14-2019, 10:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-14-2019, 09:56 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I also like Andrew Yang.

Me too. He is going to give me $1,000 a month for simply having a pulse and also provide free healthcare for illegal aliens.

For the low, low price of $3,000 a month that's quite a deal (for someone else).

(07-15-2019, 08:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-14-2019, 10:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Me too. He is going to give me $1,000 a month for simply having a pulse and also provide free healthcare for illegal aliens.

For the low, low price of $3,000 a month that's quite a deal (for someone else).

As any successful investor will tell you, it takes money to make money. Yang is way ahead of the curve here.

(07-14-2019, 10:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-14-2019, 09:56 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I also like Andrew Yang.

Me too. He is going to give me $1,000 a month for simply having a pulse and also provide free healthcare for illegal aliens.

I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

(07-14-2019, 03:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-14-2019, 03:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The two presidents named Roosevelt were both well known for making sure our interests are considered abroad.
And neither was ever described as rude or juvenile or boorish.
You can put America first without insulting people.

It's my observation that the old rules no longer apply. This man fights and he's really the only one in the last 12 years doing so for the side I want to prevail.

There's no excuse for the way he acts.  It's embarrassing.  

Like I've said before, I agree with a lot of his policies, but the way he acts is so ridiculously childish, it's hard to justify voting for him.  Maybe if the Democrats go hard left, as they show all signs of doing, I'll think about voting for him, but probably I will look for a 3rd party that I think might have a future.

(07-15-2019, 10:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-14-2019, 10:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Me too. He is going to give me $1,000 a month for simply having a pulse and also provide free healthcare for illegal aliens.

I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

$12000 a year isn't enough to take anyone off social programs, so it actually makes the problem worse, lol.
Not to mention, $15 an hour doesn't take anyone off social programs either.

(07-15-2019, 10:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-14-2019, 10:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Me too. He is going to give me $1,000 a month for simply having a pulse and also provide free healthcare for illegal aliens.

I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

(07-14-2019, 03:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It's my observation that the old rules no longer apply. This man fights and he's really the only one in the last 12 years doing so for the side I want to prevail.

There's no excuse for the way he acts.  It's embarrassing.  

Like I've said before, I agree with a lot of his policies, but the way he acts is so ridiculously childish, it's hard to justify voting for him.  Maybe if the Democrats go hard left, as they show all signs of doing, I'll think about voting for him, but probably I will look for a 3rd party that I think might have a future.

I'm not excusing it, I'm encouraging it. Get in there and fight on their terms and win, that's what Trump has done for four years now. The more he does it the further left they go, the further left they go the more reasonable his behavior appears and the more likely that we won't have to deal with them much longer. He's turned their playbook against them and they only have the one hammer in the toolbox. Man I love politics!

And UBI couldn't work in Finland, there's no chance in hell it could work here.

(07-15-2019, 11:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 10:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

There's no excuse for the way he acts.  It's embarrassing.  

Like I've said before, I agree with a lot of his policies, but the way he acts is so ridiculously childish, it's hard to justify voting for him.  Maybe if the Democrats go hard left, as they show all signs of doing, I'll think about voting for him, but probably I will look for a 3rd party that I think might have a future.

I'm not excusing it, I'm encouraging it. Get in there and fight on their terms and win, that's what Trump has done for four years now. The more he does it the further left they go, the further left they go the more reasonable his behavior appears and the more likely that we won't have to deal with them much longer. He's turned their playbook against them and they only have the one hammer in the toolbox. Man I love politics!

And UBI couldn't work in Finland, there's no chance in hell it could work here.

Ronald Reagan didn't act like that.  Ronald Reagan had class.  He had logic.  He had strong arguments.   He was friendly with everyone, but he got almost everything he wanted.  Reagan was someone we could be proud of.   Reagan was enjoyable to watch and listen to.  

Trump?  Embarrassing, childish, narcissistic, egotistical, thin skinned, insulting, idiotic.

(07-15-2019, 11:52 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 11:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not excusing it, I'm encouraging it. Get in there and fight on their terms and win, that's what Trump has done for four years now. The more he does it the further left they go, the further left they go the more reasonable his behavior appears and the more likely that we won't have to deal with them much longer. He's turned their playbook against them and they only have the one hammer in the toolbox. Man I love politics!

And UBI couldn't work in Finland, there's no chance in hell it could work here.

Ronald Reagan didn't act like that.  Ronald Reagan had class.  He had logic.  He had strong arguments.   He was friendly with everyone, but he got almost everything he wanted.  Reagan was someone we could be proud of.   Reagan was enjoyable to watch and listen to.  

Trump?  Embarrassing, childish, narcissistic, egotistical, thin skinned, insulting, idiotic.

Lol, that was decades ago. You need to accept that the new world is nothing like the old one, this one is nasty and you can either play the game that way or lose.

(07-15-2019, 10:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-14-2019, 10:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Me too. He is going to give me $1,000 a month for simply having a pulse and also provide free healthcare for illegal aliens.

I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

(07-14-2019, 03:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It's my observation that the old rules no longer apply. This man fights and he's really the only one in the last 12 years doing so for the side I want to prevail.

There's no excuse for the way he acts.  It's embarrassing.  

Like I've said before, I agree with a lot of his policies, but the way he acts is so ridiculously childish, it's hard to justify voting for him.  Maybe if the Democrats go hard left, as they show all signs of doing, I'll think about voting for him, but probably I will look for a 3rd party that I think might have a future.

I agree with you on both.
I am very concerned that a minority of people who get the handout will waste it on wine, women, and song, and come back either to the street corner or to the political process asking for more.
And I have visions where a new cottage industry of hucksters will pop up, promising cash and prizes and eternal glory if you just hand your Andrew Yang welfare check over to them.
Other than these two fears (which are big fears) it's a great idea.  Maybe the number of people who will fall into either trap is really small, and the amount of money we save on social programs and the heartache we spare the average person of are big.  Maybe it'd be worth doing.  I don't know.

---

(07-15-2019, 11:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 10:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

There's no excuse for the way he acts.  It's embarrassing.  

Like I've said before, I agree with a lot of his policies, but the way he acts is so ridiculously childish, it's hard to justify voting for him.  Maybe if the Democrats go hard left, as they show all signs of doing, I'll think about voting for him, but probably I will look for a 3rd party that I think might have a future.

I'm not excusing it, I'm encouraging it. Get in there and fight on their terms and win, that's what Trump has done for four years now. The more he does it the further left they go, the further left they go the more reasonable his behavior appears and the more likely that we won't have to deal with them much longer. He's turned their playbook against them and they only have the one hammer in the toolbox. Man I love politics!

And UBI couldn't work in Finland, there's no chance in hell it could work here.

"their terms?!"
No, dude.
No.  
Trump is the only one down there in that deep mud.
None of our elected officials were ever down in that deep end.

(07-15-2019, 01:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 10:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

There's no excuse for the way he acts.  It's embarrassing.  

Like I've said before, I agree with a lot of his policies, but the way he acts is so ridiculously childish, it's hard to justify voting for him.  Maybe if the Democrats go hard left, as they show all signs of doing, I'll think about voting for him, but probably I will look for a 3rd party that I think might have a future.

I agree with you on both.
I am very concerned that a minority of people who get the handout will waste it on wine, women, and song, and come back either to the street corner or to the political process asking for more.
And I have visions where a new cottage industry of hucksters will pop up, promising cash and prizes and eternal glory if you just hand your Andrew Yang welfare check over to them.
Other than these two fears (which are big fears) it's a great idea.  Maybe the number of people who will fall into either trap is really small, and the amount of money we save on social programs and the heartache we spare the average person of are big.  Maybe it'd be worth doing.  I don't know.

---

(07-15-2019, 11:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not excusing it, I'm encouraging it. Get in there and fight on their terms and win, that's what Trump has done for four years now. The more he does it the further left they go, the further left they go the more reasonable his behavior appears and the more likely that we won't have to deal with them much longer. He's turned their playbook against them and they only have the one hammer in the toolbox. Man I love politics!

And UBI couldn't work in Finland, there's no chance in hell it could work here.

"their terms?!"
No, dude.
No.  
Trump is the only one down there in that deep mud.
None of our elected officials were ever down in that deep end.

Lol, you don't really think the social programs will go away do you? You really are naive if so. It's just another hand out on top of what they already get.

(07-15-2019, 10:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 10:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I have heard of that guaranteed income idea before, and it becomes interesting if it means we can abolish lots of social programs and replace them with this direct handout.  It would take a lot less bureaucracy because there wouldn't have to be all sorts of means testing and other requirements.  For anyone who files a tax return that shows income above a certain level, just tax it all back.  It could really simplify things.  IF they do it right.  A big IF.

---

$12000 a year isn't enough to take anyone off social programs, so it actually makes the problem worse, lol.
Not to mention, $15 an hour doesn't take anyone off social programs either.

I think you're just using hyperbole. 
I hope you are, I mean.
If you change "anyone" to "everyone" ... those are fair statements.  
$15 an hour will take PLENTY of people off of social programs.  All of them? By no means.  
The conversation about $15/hour should revolve around the fact that there will be fewer jobs, but also fewer people who have jobs and still need welfare.  It might help the government's budget and make more people happy, it might not.  But that's where the conversation should be.  Compare who is helped to who is hurt, add it up and decide if it still comes out positive.
But don't deny that some people will be helped.  Some people will be helped.  Admit it.
Only a moron lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

(07-15-2019, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 10:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]$12000 a year isn't enough to take anyone off social programs, so it actually makes the problem worse, lol.
Not to mention, $15 an hour doesn't take anyone off social programs either.

I think you're just using hyperbole. 
I hope you are, I mean.
If you change "anyone" to "everyone" ... those are fair statements.  
$15 an hour will take PLENTY of people off of social programs.  All of them? By no means.  
The conversation about $15/hour should revolve around the fact that there will be fewer jobs, but also fewer people who have jobs and still need welfare.  It might help the government's budget and make more people happy, it might not.  But that's where the conversation should be.  Compare who is helped to who is hurt, add it up and decide if it still comes out positive.
But don't deny that some people will be helped.  Some people will be helped.  Admit it.
Only a moron lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

$15 an hour won't mean a damn thing when the prices inflate to account for the cost.

(07-15-2019, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're just using hyperbole. 
I hope you are, I mean.
If you change "anyone" to "everyone" ... those are fair statements.  
$15 an hour will take PLENTY of people off of social programs.  All of them? By no means.  
The conversation about $15/hour should revolve around the fact that there will be fewer jobs, but also fewer people who have jobs and still need welfare.  It might help the government's budget and make more people happy, it might not.  But that's where the conversation should be.  Compare who is helped to who is hurt, add it up and decide if it still comes out positive.
But don't deny that some people will be helped.  Some people will be helped.  Admit it.
Only a moron lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

$15 an hour won't mean a damn thing when the prices inflate to account for the cost.

They don't understand this. If I didn't have him blocked, I'd actually love to hear him explain how $15 was decided on as a "living wage". Why not $20?

(07-15-2019, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're just using hyperbole. 
I hope you are, I mean.
If you change "anyone" to "everyone" ... those are fair statements.  
$15 an hour will take PLENTY of people off of social programs.  All of them? By no means.  
The conversation about $15/hour should revolve around the fact that there will be fewer jobs, but also fewer people who have jobs and still need welfare.  It might help the government's budget and make more people happy, it might not.  But that's where the conversation should be.  Compare who is helped to who is hurt, add it up and decide if it still comes out positive.
But don't deny that some people will be helped.  Some people will be helped.  Admit it.
Only a moron lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

$15 an hour won't mean a damn thing when the prices inflate to account for the cost.

Raising the minimum wage does risk inflation.
But most people already earn more than $15 an hour, so the change wouldn't change their outlook or spending habits directly.
And even so, even if it caused inflation, it's far from given that inflation would totally wipe out everyone's wage gains.
This stuff is complicated.  It can't be written off with one-liners.

---

(07-15-2019, 02:12 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]$15 an hour won't mean a damn thing when the prices inflate to account for the cost.

They don't understand this. If I didn't have him blocked, I'd actually love to hear him explain how $15 was decided on as a "living wage". Why not $20?

I don't know.
I wasn't involved in the conversation.
But I'd assume it has a lot more to do with striking the right balance between ambition and plausibility, than it does with any actual household budget.
I don't think rushing to a $15/hour minimum wage is good or right.
But I do think that we'll get there eventually in Florida because our minimum wage already automatically indexes to inflation.

(07-15-2019, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 10:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]$12000 a year isn't enough to take anyone off social programs, so it actually makes the problem worse, lol.
Not to mention, $15 an hour doesn't take anyone off social programs either.

I think you're just using hyperbole. 
I hope you are, I mean.
If you change "anyone" to "everyone" ... those are fair statements.  
$15 an hour will take PLENTY of people off of social programs.  All of them? By no means.  
The conversation about $15/hour should revolve around the fact that there will be fewer jobs, but also fewer people who have jobs and still need welfare.  It might help the government's budget and make more people happy, it might not.  But that's where the conversation should be.  Compare who is helped to who is hurt, add it up and decide if it still comes out positive.
But don't deny that some people will be helped.  Some people will be helped.  Admit it.
Only a moron lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

$15/hr. will be great until the trickle-up effect raises everyone else's salaries, forcing employers to cut jobs as inflation in other areas of the economy overrides any momentary net gains from doubling the minimum wage with no economic justification for it. That screws everyone making "too much" to feel the trickle-up effects coming up from below, but who will still be hit by the spike in inflation. It's a momentary "fix" for low-income workers, and within five years we'll be hearing about how $15 is no longer a living wage, the new minimum should be $20, and we should convert our currency to yen so the big numbers don't look as bad.

(07-15-2019, 02:21 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're just using hyperbole. 
I hope you are, I mean.
If you change "anyone" to "everyone" ... those are fair statements.  
$15 an hour will take PLENTY of people off of social programs.  All of them? By no means.  
The conversation about $15/hour should revolve around the fact that there will be fewer jobs, but also fewer people who have jobs and still need welfare.  It might help the government's budget and make more people happy, it might not.  But that's where the conversation should be.  Compare who is helped to who is hurt, add it up and decide if it still comes out positive.
But don't deny that some people will be helped.  Some people will be helped.  Admit it.
Only a moron lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

$15/hr. will be great until the trickle-up effect raises everyone else's salaries, forcing employers to cut jobs as inflation in other areas of the economy overrides any momentary net gains from doubling the minimum wage with no economic justification for it. That screws everyone making "too much" to feel the trickle-up effects coming up from below, but who will still be hit by the spike in inflation. It's a momentary "fix" for low-income workers, and within five years we'll be hearing about how $15 is no longer a living wage, the new minimum should be $20, and we should convert our currency to yen so the big numbers don't look as bad.

How businesses respond to a forced minimum wage increase. It is very simple. Edit: I mean, look, they even tell you where to stand!

You want more money? Get a better job.

(07-15-2019, 02:27 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 02:21 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]$15/hr. will be great until the trickle-up effect raises everyone else's salaries, forcing employers to cut jobs as inflation in other areas of the economy overrides any momentary net gains from doubling the minimum wage with no economic justification for it. That screws everyone making "too much" to feel the trickle-up effects coming up from below, but who will still be hit by the spike in inflation. It's a momentary "fix" for low-income workers, and within five years we'll be hearing about how $15 is no longer a living wage, the new minimum should be $20, and we should convert our currency to yen so the big numbers don't look as bad.

How businesses respond to a forced minimum wage increase. It is very simple. Edit: I mean, look, they even tell you where to stand!

You want more money? Get a better job.

CBO said that there would be fewer jobs.  I believe them.
The automation is part of the reason why.
But anyone who opposes it has to do more.
It's not enough to just show that there are bad side effects.
Show that the bad outweighs the good.

(07-15-2019, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're just using hyperbole. 
I hope you are, I mean.
If you change "anyone" to "everyone" ... those are fair statements.  
$15 an hour will take PLENTY of people off of social programs.  All of them? By no means.  
The conversation about $15/hour should revolve around the fact that there will be fewer jobs, but also fewer people who have jobs and still need welfare.  It might help the government's budget and make more people happy, it might not.  But that's where the conversation should be.  Compare who is helped to who is hurt, add it up and decide if it still comes out positive.
But don't deny that some people will be helped.  Some people will be helped.  Admit it.
Only a moron lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

$15 an hour won't mean a damn thing when the prices inflate to account for the cost.

Not to mention the added inflation from the tariffs on Chinese goods.

(07-15-2019, 02:55 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2019, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]$15 an hour won't mean a damn thing when the prices inflate to account for the cost.

Not to mention the added inflation from the tariffs on Chinese goods.

China had their slowest 2nd quarter growth in more than 27 years. Pretty safe to say tariffs are working and they will come to the table soon or later.

They likely think they can wait out the 2020 election for a weak candidate to continue the status quo.

$15 per hour in Jacksonville, Florida != $15 per hour in New York City.  For those of you that don't understand programming language... $15 dollars per hour here in Jacksonville is not the same as $15 per hour in New York City (or any other democrat controlled city for that matter).  $15 per hour here in Jacksonville is more like $8 per hour (possibly less) in New York City.

Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour would bankrupt and shut down small business in most of the U.S.A.

Now getting back to the topic of this thread.  Let's either discuss the idiotic "abolish DHS" idea that the young snowflake elected to Congress talks about or I will be forced to lock the thread and start a new topic.