UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums > STEVEN E. YUHAS MEMORIAL LOUNGE > Off-Topic Gibberish

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1301  
Old 08-13-2018, 03:39 PM
UDEE79's Avatar
UDEE79 UDEE79 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beavercreek Ohio
Posts: 2,580
Thanks: 2,093
Thanked 1,753 Times in 713 Posts
UDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
Could you explain how you arrived at that number?

The US GDP is $20 trillion.

2% of $20 trillion is $400 billion.

$400 billion x 8 is $3.2 trillion.

So, an extra 2% of growth over 8 years is only $3.2 trillion. Not $32 trillion.
I said 4 trillion not 32 trillion. Hereís the math

$20T*1.04^8 - $20T*1.02^8 = $3.94T
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
  #1302  
Old 08-13-2018, 04:12 PM
Chris R's Avatar
Chris R Chris R is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 10,542
Thanks: 1,090
Thanked 11,215 Times in 3,327 Posts
Chris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond repute
Doesnt surprise me that taping in the Oval Office is fairly easy. You are dealing with your most trusted and close confidants in government who were picked to hold the darkest of secrets from the sunlight -- for national security and other reasons. Its a very tight-knit group built on trust. That its basically never happened before (at least w/smartphones?) just underscores how that trust has been considered sacred by all.


Until now. She basically corked a bat in a league where nobody ever bothered checking for corked bats because everyone swore on their mother's grave.


Where I fault Trump is hiring this talentless goon. And she's not the first to beg, barter, or steal her way into a Trump job. He should have known better and he probably did, but did it anyway -- perhaps to avoid the proverbial race-card criticism. No matter, the more he says she's talentless -- and she is -- the worse it makes the hire look to begin with. Not like he can pawn it off to someone else. Both parties look inept in this situation.


Trump does much better when he stops listening to everyone around him and goes with his instincts. That's the reason he won the presidency -- to stop listening to hangers-on, fingers, insiders, and political operatives that surround the job and create unnecessary dead weight. Not suggesting he needs to be a totalitarian, but for every Gorsich there is an Omarosa. For every Mattis there is a Sean Spicer.
__________________

C. M. Rieman | Publisher | 937.361.4630 | Get the latest here:

Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 08-13-2018, 04:31 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,646
Thanks: 4,101
Thanked 3,320 Times in 2,184 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDEE79 View Post
I said 4 trillion not 32 trillion. Here’s the math

$20T*1.04^8 - $20T*1.02^8 = $3.94T
Posted via Mobile Device
No you didn't. Go back and read your original post, I bolded the relevant part.

You said $4 trillion per year in additional growth for each of 8 years.

You said that a 2% increase in growth each year for each of 8 years would result in $32 trillion worth of additional growth after just 8 years. That's absurd.

I am not sure why you are not getting this.


http://www.udpride.com/forums/showpo...postcount=1280:

The difference between 4% GDP growth vs. 2% over 8 years is 4 trillion Bucks per year

Last edited by ud2; 08-13-2018 at 04:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 08-13-2018, 06:33 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
"Who do you believe....."

I recall an old movie, a comedy, in which an actor said something like, "Who do you believe, me or your own eyes?"

I thought of that watching Giuliani a few minutes ago. Over the weekend on a cable show he said that the President never told Comey to "take it easy on Flynn...or "I hope you can go easy...." something like that. Comey testified under oath that the President said that. Giuliani said that not only didn't the President say anything like that, Flynn was never discussed at all with Comey...his name never came up. "And that's what the President will testify to". That was just a day or two ago.

Today Giuliani was on a show and two videos of a few months ago were played for him in which Giuliani explained what the President meant when he told Comey to "go easy on Flynn...he's a good man", etc. Right before his eyes and the eyes and ears of millions of people was video evidence of Giuliani explaining the meaning of the President's remarks to Comey, something that Giuliani now claims never happened.

And the proof of contradiction didn't even appear to phase Giuliani...he smiled and sort of laughed it off. Are these people completely crazy?

What the hell is going on in the Administration? Do they think we're all deaf, dumb and blind? And these guys,...the ones that lie to your face as calmly and effortlessly as breathing,...are the ones that keep referring to the Mueller probe as a witch hunt having not the slightest basis or justification.

"Who do you believe, me or your own eyes?" Sheesh!
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 08-14-2018, 12:21 AM
UDEE79's Avatar
UDEE79 UDEE79 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beavercreek Ohio
Posts: 2,580
Thanks: 2,093
Thanked 1,753 Times in 713 Posts
UDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
No you didn't. Go back and read your original post, I bolded the relevant part.

You said $4 trillion per year in additional growth for each of 8 years.

You said that a 2% increase in growth each year for each of 8 years would result in $32 trillion worth of additional growth after just 8 years. That's absurd.

I am not sure why you are not getting this.


http://www.udpride.com/forums/showpo...postcount=1280:

The difference between 4% GDP growth vs. 2% over 8 years is 4 trillion Bucks per year
Ok I see how you read my post to get 32 trillion. What I typed could be ambiguous how about this "The difference between 4% GDP growth vs. 2% after 8 years is 4 trillion Bucks per year"
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDEE79 For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (08-14-2018)
  #1306  
Old 08-14-2018, 09:04 AM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 12,282
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 5,662 Times in 3,222 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
It's hard to believe that the President will invite anymore abuse than he already is getting, but I think he just may take on the congressional spenders in the second two years, once the mid-terms are over. He is giving these guys a chance to win and then the gloves come off. The tough part is that the historical trend will probably happen and Trump will no longer have the votes to overcome the ultra spending and always say no, Dems.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 08-14-2018, 09:42 AM
cj's Avatar
cj cj is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,029
Thanks: 2,643
Thanked 3,380 Times in 1,772 Posts
cj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond repute
Unfortunately there are quite a few Republicans that love to spend other peoples money.
__________________
Give liberals an inch and they will take the country.
Opinions are like swampys, everybody has one.
We're America B!+c#
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 08-14-2018, 10:29 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Spending

Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
It's hard to believe that the President will invite anymore abuse than he already is getting, but I think he just may take on the congressional spenders in the second two years, once the mid-terms are over. He is giving these guys a chance to win and then the gloves come off. The tough part is that the historical trend will probably happen and Trump will no longer have the votes to overcome the ultra spending and always say no, Dems.
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Unfortunately there are quite a few Republicans that love to spend other peoples money.
How do you propose that the President "take on spending?"
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 08-14-2018, 12:02 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDEE79 View Post
Ok I see how you read my post to get 32 trillion. What I typed could be ambiguous how about this "The difference between 4% GDP growth vs. 2% after 8 years is 4 trillion Bucks per year"
Sorry - your "per year" still puts it at $32T. Drop those two words and you have the math working as well.
Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 08-14-2018, 12:37 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Yup

Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
Sorry - your "per year" still puts it at $32T. Drop those two words and you have the math working as well.
"Each year" and/or "per year" is what got `79 in trouble The $4 billion is the difference in the eighth year. A big deal, for sure.

But the odds against 4% annual GDP growth over the next eight years are mighty high, indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 08-14-2018, 12:56 PM
434 434 is offline
Just off the Jet
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 19 Times in 7 Posts
434 has a spectacular aura about434 has a spectacular aura about
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
"Each year" and/or "per year" is what got `79 in trouble The $4 billion is the difference in the eighth year. A big deal, for sure.

But the odds against 4% annual GDP growth over the next eight years are mighty high, indeed.
This back and forth has been fun to watch, but neglects a major point. The CBO using 3.5% annual growth over the next 8 years (which the odds are highly against as well), still projects an additional $9 trillion added to the debt.

(see https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/b...conomic-data#3 for estimates)

This would roughly equal the same amount of debt that was added during Obama's 8 years. Considering Obama inherited an economy in recession and Trump inherited a stable economy (I would argue that Trump inherited a better economy than most here believe, but hopefully at least we can agree Trump inherited a better economic situation than Obama), I don't know how one can argue that Trump's current policies and tax cuts are doing anything to reduce the debt.
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to 434 For This Totally Excellent Post:
IAFlyer (08-14-2018), UACFlyer (08-14-2018), UDEE79 (08-14-2018)
  #1312  
Old 08-14-2018, 01:12 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Absolutely right!

Originally Posted by 434 View Post
This back and forth has been fun to watch, but neglects a major point. The CBO using 3.5% annual growth over the next 8 years (which the odds are highly against as well), still projects an additional $9 trillion added to the debt.

(see https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/b...conomic-data#3 for estimates)

This would roughly equal the same amount of debt that was added during Obama's 8 years. Considering Obama inherited an economy in recession and Trump inherited a stable economy (I would argue that Trump inherited a better economy than most here believe, but hopefully at least we can agree Trump inherited a better economic situation than Obama), I don't know how one can argue that Trump's current policies and tax cuts are doing anything to reduce the debt.
No one in DC....not Dems or Reps....paying attention to the deficit and the growing debt. The cause, of course, is growth in entitlement spending, specifically Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid. It has been predicted that nothing will be done until the problem becomes so bad that a bipartisan solution becomes politically possible. Entitlement reform is actually quite simple and not at all painful...just not politically palatable at the moment. Too bad.
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 08-14-2018, 01:13 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Absolutely right!

Originally Posted by 434 View Post
This back and forth has been fun to watch, but neglects a major point. The CBO using 3.5% annual growth over the next 8 years (which the odds are highly against as well), still projects an additional $9 trillion added to the debt.

(see https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/b...conomic-data#3 for estimates)

This would roughly equal the same amount of debt that was added during Obama's 8 years. Considering Obama inherited an economy in recession and Trump inherited a stable economy (I would argue that Trump inherited a better economy than most here believe, but hopefully at least we can agree Trump inherited a better economic situation than Obama), I don't know how one can argue that Trump's current policies and tax cuts are doing anything to reduce the debt.
No one in DC....not Dems or Reps....paying attention to the deficit and the growing debt. The cause, of course, is growth in entitlement spending, specifically Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid. It has been predicted that nothing will be done until the problem becomes so bad that a bipartisan solution becomes politically possible. The corrections are simple....just not politically palatable at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 08-14-2018, 03:21 PM
UDEE79's Avatar
UDEE79 UDEE79 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Beavercreek Ohio
Posts: 2,580
Thanks: 2,093
Thanked 1,753 Times in 713 Posts
UDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond reputeUDEE79 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
"Each year" and/or "per year" is what got `79 in trouble The $4 billion is the difference in the eighth year. A big deal, for sure.

But the odds against 4% annual GDP growth over the next eight years are mighty high, indeed.
I think the message I was trying to convey has finally been ...conveyed. However "Gross Domestic Product" needs a time period to mean anything. the words "annual", "each year" and "per year" all mean the same thing and should not have been confusing.

UAC I am sure that you are right saying that sustained 4% is unlikely. I posted because I was surprised that increasing growth by two percentage points for eight years is like adding Germany's economy to ours.
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 08-14-2018, 03:48 PM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 12,282
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 5,662 Times in 3,222 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
How do you propose that the President "take on spending?"
If the President still has the House and Senate, or not, he needs to demand a balanced budget, or else a veto and government shutdown. Secondly, in his second term he needs to take on entitlements and Social Security. There will be large political suicide in that, so he cannot do it in his first term.

I do not understand how anyone takes on Medicare and Medicaid, until they take on the entire medical community and their inflated pricing structure. This must be done and soon. It will take extreme and brutal solutions way outside the box. This cost shifting of Obamacare or alternate Obamacare or Republicancare does nothing with costs. A start would be to open up insurance across state lines. Make all doctors, hospitals and pharmacies publish their rates, and make insurers pay at the low rates. And stop the insane, money grabbing practice of unneeded tests.

Here is an example. My wife was due for a Mammogram. Our family doctor said you can go to one of three places nearby. I said to the doctor that previously you mentioned that Raleigh Radiology is cheaper. She said, "Yes, three times cheaper than the other two." Good of her to say, but why not up front, and make her give the pricing.
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 08-14-2018, 04:05 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Not possible, Jack....

Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
If the President still has the House and Senate, or not, he needs to demand a balanced budget, or else a veto and government shutdown. Secondly, in his second term he needs to take on entitlements and Social Security. There will be large political suicide in that, so he cannot do it in his first term.

I do not understand how anyone takes on Medicare and Medicaid, until they take on the entire medical community and their inflated pricing structure. This must be done and soon. It will take extreme and brutal solutions way outside the box. This cost shifting of Obamacare or alternate Obamacare or Republicancare does nothing with costs. A start would be to open up insurance across state lines. Make all doctors, hospitals and pharmacies publish their rates, and make insurers pay at the low rates. And stop the insane, money grabbing practice of unneeded tests.

Here is an example. My wife was due for a Mammogram. Our family doctor said you can go to one of three places nearby. I said to the doctor that previously you mentioned that Raleigh Radiology is cheaper. She said, "Yes, three times cheaper than the other two." Good of her to say, but why not up front, and make her give the pricing.
Jack, there is no way to finesse this issue. There is no way to realistically balance the budget or even get close without dealing directly with entitlements.

Jack, if the entire defense budget was zeroed out....not one bullet purchased....all the troops sent home....the Pentagon closed....we would still have a deficit. The deficit cannot be dealt with in any meaningful way without going after the basic cause the of the deficit...senior entitlements.
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 08-14-2018, 04:26 PM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 12,282
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 5,662 Times in 3,222 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Jack, there is no way to finesse this issue. There is no way to realistically balance the budget or even get close without dealing directly with entitlements.

Jack, if the entire defense budget was zeroed out....not one bullet purchased....all the troops sent home....the Pentagon closed....we would still have a deficit. The deficit cannot be dealt with in any meaningful way without going after the basic cause the of the deficit...senior entitlements.
It sounds like you are equating the word budget to deficit. Budget is only current spending less revenue. It is projected to run between $500 billion and $1 trillion for the next budget year. Can we take that out of the budget? Sure.

Newt Gingrich led the last big move to a balanced budget. Here is what he says.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...xt-decade.html

Last edited by jack72; 08-14-2018 at 04:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 08-14-2018, 05:28 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Agree, but,...

Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
It sounds like you are equating the word budget to deficit. Budget is only current spending less revenue. It is projected to run between $500 billion and $1 trillion for the next budget year. Can we take that out of the budget? Sure.

Newt Gingrich led the last big move to a balanced budget. Here is what he says.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...xt-decade.html
I agree with Newt up to a point. Note, he did mention restructuring SS, Medicare etc. without providing numbers.

The key point....a critical point...differentiating the Clinton/Gingrich years from today is that senior entitlements were a much smaller part of Federal spending when Clinton was in office and the wave of baby-boomer retirements was still years away. Balancing the budget or at least gradually reducing the deficit 20-30 years ago was an entirely different problem then than it is today. Gingrich knows that.

But, I agree with much of what he says, most actually. You cannot CUT senior entitlements. I never suggested that. What you can do is reduce their rate of growth. That's all that is required. For example, increasing the age for full SS retirement benefits doesn't "cut" anyone's benefit. It just reduces the rate of growth. And, of course, no one currently receiving benefits would be affected. It's those in the 50s and younger that will be affected...and only slightly at that.

In fact, the age for full benefits was increased during the Clinton era from 65 to what it is today, 67. Continuing the increase to age 70 or 72 would make a huge impact.

Bottom line: The Clinton/Gingrich era is past...those days were well before senior entitlements came close to gobbling up >50% of Federal spending.
Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 08-15-2018, 10:01 AM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 12,282
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 5,662 Times in 3,222 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
I agree with Newt up to a point. Note, he did mention restructuring SS, Medicare etc. without providing numbers.

The key point....a critical point...differentiating the Clinton/Gingrich years from today is that senior entitlements were a much smaller part of Federal spending when Clinton was in office and the wave of baby-boomer retirements was still years away. Balancing the budget or at least gradually reducing the deficit 20-30 years ago was an entirely different problem then than it is today. Gingrich knows that.

But, I agree with much of what he says, most actually. You cannot CUT senior entitlements. I never suggested that. What you can do is reduce their rate of growth. That's all that is required. For example, increasing the age for full SS retirement benefits doesn't "cut" anyone's benefit. It just reduces the rate of growth. And, of course, no one currently receiving benefits would be affected. It's those in the 50s and younger that will be affected...and only slightly at that.

In fact, the age for full benefits was increased during the Clinton era from 65 to what it is today, 67. Continuing the increase to age 70 or 72 would make a huge impact.

Bottom line: The Clinton/Gingrich era is past...those days were well before senior entitlements came close to gobbling up >50% of Federal spending.
Easy for me to agree with you, since I will start collecting in 2 years, but what about those who get bumped up 3 or 6 years? The blame will go squarely on Trump and the Republicans, since every Dem will vote against it.

To help us understand your perspective, when will you collect, and what if they set 72 as the age for you?
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 08-15-2018, 10:49 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
SS age for full benefits

Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
Easy for me to agree with you, since I will start collecting in 2 years, but what about those who get bumped up 3 or 6 years? The blame will go squarely on Trump and the Republicans, since every Dem will vote against it.

To help us understand your perspective, when will you collect, and what if they set 72 as the age for you?
Jack, a few things:

1. The age to begin collecting SS would remain at 62...just as it did when the age for FULL benefits was increased from 65 to 67.

2. Increasing the age for full benefits just bends the curve down slightly for each person. When the change from 65 to 67 was made years ago there was barely a peep...because the change was insignificant for an individual worker. The point is that there are millions of retirees so that the impact on TOTAL spending is very significant. 10,000 people reach age 65 EVERY DAY, Jack, 10,000!

I have two very well educated, very well informed middle-age sons. I asked each if they knew the age at which they were eligible for full SS benefits. Neither knew. It doesn't matter for an individual to a significant degree. It's the cumulative effect of many millions that matters.

3. Common sense: Jack, when the age for full benefits was set in the 1930s life expectancy was 62...it's now about 80. If ever there was a common sense issue, raising the age for full benefits is it. Not to 80...but to at least 70 from the current 67. Very important: The age to begin collecting benefits would remain at 62, just as was the case when the full benefit age was raised to 67. Moreover, any increase would be very gradual, say two months per year so that it would take six years to raise the age from 67 to 68...and 18 years to raise the age to 70. Painless!

This is a no brainer, Jack.
___________
One last thought, Jack. To make meaningful, fair changes in SS you first have to understand the issue. No one's SS benefit has to be cut, i.e., "reduced". "Government speak" uses the word "cut". If a guy is getting $100 from the government now and the formula calls for him receiving $150 in five years, a reduction in the rate of growth so that he gets $140 in five years is not a "cut', except in gov-speak. The guy's "increase" has been reduced from $150 to $140.....that is still an increase, not a "cut". What has changed is the "rate of increase". That's all that is required to make SS solvent and affordable....reducing the rate pf growth.

Last edited by UACFlyer; 08-15-2018 at 11:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
Chris R (08-15-2018)
  #1321  
Old 08-15-2018, 01:43 PM
cj's Avatar
cj cj is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,029
Thanks: 2,643
Thanked 3,380 Times in 1,772 Posts
cj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond repute
I hate Social (Ponzi Scheme) Security and wish we had the option to opt out at a young age and invest the same proportion of income privately. It would still be automatically deducted but it would go to mutual funds, stocks, bonds..... and the government would not have a thing to do with it. That makes the most sense. Give everyone under the age of 40 that option and everyone would be much better off at their retirement age and most could retire much earlier as most of the money invested would go to the market. This will NEVER happen as that is giving the people too much control of their own destiny without any government say so.

Look at areas of the country that have opted out of SS. They are doing way better towards their retirement than SS.
__________________
Give liberals an inch and they will take the country.
Opinions are like swampys, everybody has one.
We're America B!+c#
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to cj For This Totally Excellent Post:
ClaytonFlyerFan (08-15-2018), jack72 (08-15-2018), rollo (08-15-2018)
  #1322  
Old 08-15-2018, 02:07 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,691
Thanks: 2,489
Thanked 5,698 Times in 2,730 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I hate Social (Ponzi Scheme) Security and wish we had the option to opt out at a young age and invest the same proportion of income privately. It would still be automatically deducted but it would go to mutual funds, stocks, bonds..... and the government would not have a thing to do with it. That makes the most sense. Give everyone under the age of 40 that option and everyone would be much better off at their retirement age and most could retire much earlier as most of the money invested would go to the market. This will NEVER happen as that is giving the people too much control of their own destiny without any government say so.

Look at areas of the country that have opted out of SS. They are doing way better towards their retirement than SS.
The government will never have the long term discipline to manage your money. Create incentives for people to manage their own wealth wisely. That will result in the greatest success, IMO.

Venezuelans thought they were going to be taken care of by the government. Now they are raiding the zoo for dinner and the water is being shut off. Welcome to the Stone Age. I'm OK with some government relief programs, but don't put it in charge of health care, retirement, etc. Government will screw that stuff up beyond belief.

Last edited by Fudd; 08-15-2018 at 02:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 08-15-2018, 02:22 PM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 12,282
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 5,662 Times in 3,222 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Jack, a few things:

1. The age to begin collecting SS would remain at 62...just as it did when the age for FULL benefits was increased from 65 to 67.

2. Increasing the age for full benefits just bends the curve down slightly for each person. When the change from 65 to 67 was made years ago there was barely a peep...because the change was insignificant for an individual worker. The point is that there are millions of retirees so that the impact on TOTAL spending is very significant. 10,000 people reach age 65 EVERY DAY, Jack, 10,000!

I have two very well educated, very well informed middle-age sons. I asked each if they knew the age at which they were eligible for full SS benefits. Neither knew. It doesn't matter for an individual to a significant degree. It's the cumulative effect of many millions that matters.

3. Common sense: Jack, when the age for full benefits was set in the 1930s life expectancy was 62...it's now about 80. If ever there was a common sense issue, raising the age for full benefits is it. Not to 80...but to at least 70 from the current 67. Very important: The age to begin collecting benefits would remain at 62, just as was the case when the full benefit age was raised to 67. Moreover, any increase would be very gradual, say two months per year so that it would take six years to raise the age from 67 to 68...and 18 years to raise the age to 70. Painless!

This is a no brainer, Jack.
___________
One last thought, Jack. To make meaningful, fair changes in SS you first have to understand the issue. No one's SS benefit has to be cut, i.e., "reduced". "Government speak" uses the word "cut". If a guy is getting $100 from the government now and the formula calls for him receiving $150 in five years, a reduction in the rate of growth so that he gets $140 in five years is not a "cut', except in gov-speak. The guy's "increase" has been reduced from $150 to $140.....that is still an increase, not a "cut". What has changed is the "rate of increase". That's all that is required to make SS solvent and affordable....reducing the rate pf growth.
"Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
Easy for me to agree with you, since I will start collecting in 2 years, but what about those who get bumped up 3 or 6 years? The blame will go squarely on Trump and the Republicans, since every Dem will vote against it.

To help us understand your perspective, when will you collect, and what if they set 72 as the age for you?"

You are preaching to the choir, but that was not my question.
Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 08-15-2018, 03:03 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Bad idea!

Originally Posted by cj View Post
I hate Social (Ponzi Scheme) Security and wish we had the option to opt out at a young age and invest the same proportion of income privately. It would still be automatically deducted but it would go to mutual funds, stocks, bonds..... and the government would not have a thing to do with it. That makes the most sense. Give everyone under the age of 40 that option and everyone would be much better off at their retirement age and most could retire much earlier as most of the money invested would go to the market. This will NEVER happen as that is giving the people too much control of their own destiny without any government say so.

Look at areas of the country that have opted out of SS. They are doing way better towards their retirement than SS.
Social Security is not an investment program. If people were allowed to "invest" on their own some would do well, some poorly,...and all would lose their minds in a market meltdown such as 2008/2009 Great Recession.

One large benefit of a transfer program like SS is the word "security". It's a good system that has worked very well. It just needs occasional rework to account for demographic realities.
Reply With Quote
  #1325  
Old 08-15-2018, 03:06 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I hate Social (Ponzi Scheme) Security and wish we had the option to opt out at a young age and invest the same proportion of income privately. It would still be automatically deducted but it would go to mutual funds, stocks, bonds..... and the government would not have a thing to do with it. That makes the most sense. Give everyone under the age of 40 that option and everyone would be much better off at their retirement age and most could retire much earlier as most of the money invested would go to the market. This will NEVER happen as that is giving the people too much control of their own destiny without any government say so.

Look at areas of the country that have opted out of SS. They are doing way better towards their retirement than SS.
The problem is that the contributions of today are being used to pay the benefits of today. There is no "fund", no "investment". Money in - money out.

If you allow those paying today to opt out, you have no money to pay those currently on SS.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to IAFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (08-15-2018)
  #1326  
Old 08-15-2018, 03:21 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
A try at an answer.....

Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
"Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
Easy for me to agree with you, since I will start collecting in 2 years, but what about those who get bumped up 3 or 6 years? The blame will go squarely on Trump and the Republicans, since every Dem will vote against it.

To help us understand your perspective, when will you collect, and what if they set 72 as the age for you?"

You are preaching to the choir, but that was not my question.
An attempt to answer:

1. If the age for full benefits was increased to 72 by adding two months each year....the 65 to 67 formula...it would take 30 years from right now for the age for full benefits to reach 72. That means a person affected would be in their low 40s or younger right now. If I was now 42 (I wish) and knew that I could begin to receive SS benefits at age 62 and that my age for full benefits was 72 I wouldn't give a d@mn, just as any normal 42 year old wouldn't give a d@mn. The typical 42 year old doesn't even know what the age is to start SS benefits or to receive full benefits.

You're making it sound as if a person near retirement is suddenly going to be surprised to learn that his/her age for full benefits was suddenly changed from 67 to 72. That's not what would happen. The increase from 65 to 67 occurred over more than twenty years. It was very gradual and any further increases would also be very gradual. Adding five years to get to 72 from 67 would take 30 years......30 years Jack.

2. (I am receiving SS benefits.}
Reply With Quote
  #1327  
Old 08-15-2018, 03:38 PM
cj's Avatar
cj cj is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,029
Thanks: 2,643
Thanked 3,380 Times in 1,772 Posts
cj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
The problem is that the contributions of today are being used to pay the benefits of today. There is no "fund", no "investment". Money in - money out.
And that is the problem!! Once government started raiding the SS "Lock Box" (that Algore alluded to) we found out it was locked with a twist tie. My money, and everyone else's money, has been spent and the current workforce, including myself, is carrying the load. If the Lock Box were truly a Lock Box then it would have been easier to transition to a private investment.
Why not start now, let the current workforce add 5% to a private account and let it increase by XX% every year? If they can play with the age requirements then they should be able to figure this out as well.
__________________
Give liberals an inch and they will take the country.
Opinions are like swampys, everybody has one.
We're America B!+c#
Reply With Quote
  #1328  
Old 08-15-2018, 05:30 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by cj View Post
And that is the problem!! Once government started raiding the SS "Lock Box" (that Algore alluded to) we found out it was locked with a twist tie. My money, and everyone else's money, has been spent and the current workforce, including myself, is carrying the load. If the Lock Box were truly a Lock Box then it would have been easier to transition to a private investment.
Why not start now, let the current workforce add 5% to a private account and let it increase by XX% every year? If they can play with the age requirements then they should be able to figure this out as well.
There never was a "lock box". From day 1, it was current working people paying in to cover the benefits.

However, and this is the BIG difference that UAC referred to earlier, The life expectancy was 62, and full benefits were age 65. The bottom line is that a significant number would never get "retirement benefits" from this program - by design.

As life expectancy improved, the program did not adapt. If the age for full benefits had changed in the same way, we would be looking at age 79-83 for full benefits today.

The additional effect of life expectancy increasing is that many people receiving SS benefits are getting MORE than their contributions (plus earnings) would dictate. Their money, right? Not really.

I am in agreement with UAC that the age needs to be increased again to slow the growth.
Reply With Quote
  #1329  
Old 08-15-2018, 05:50 PM
cj's Avatar
cj cj is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,029
Thanks: 2,643
Thanked 3,380 Times in 1,772 Posts
cj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
The bottom line is that a significant number would never get "retirement benefits" from this program - by design.
Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
__________________
Give liberals an inch and they will take the country.
Opinions are like swampys, everybody has one.
We're America B!+c#
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to cj For This Totally Excellent Post:
ClaytonFlyerFan (08-15-2018)
  #1330  
Old 08-15-2018, 06:24 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Perspective

Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
There never was a "lock box". From day 1, it was current working people paying in to cover the benefits.

However, and this is the BIG difference that UAC referred to earlier, The life expectancy was 62, and full benefits were age 65. The bottom line is that a significant number would never get "retirement benefits" from this program - by design.

As life expectancy improved, the program did not adapt. If the age for full benefits had changed in the same way, we would be looking at age 79-83 for full benefits today.

The additional effect of life expectancy increasing is that many people receiving SS benefits are getting MORE than their contributions (plus earnings) would dictate. Their money, right? Not really.

I am in agreement with UAC that the age needs to be increased again to slow the growth.
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
cj, you have to apply a bit of historical perspective.

Social Security was started during the Great Depression with the intent of preventing the elderly for starving and dying on the streets. Times were really bad....none of us can imagine.

In the post-war years as the U.S. economy exploded, attitudes and expectations gradually changed. Rather than just thinking of SS as a means of preventing poverty among the elderly, the Government and the voters had the wherewithal to view SS as a means to ensure, or at least assist, seniors maintain a degree of comfort in retirement...including keeping up with inflation.

Later Medicare was added as a means of assisting seniors with the cost of medical care.

A very important aspect of this evolution was providing seniors financial independence......thereby relieving their children of the burden of caring for aging parents. Today a significant fraction of seniors rely on SS as their only source of income...and a majority as the primary source of income.

Social Security is NOT an investment program and was never intended to be. Rather, it is a senior safety net that has been working very well.

That does not alter the fact that occasional adjustments have to be made to ensure solvency and account for fiscal realities. One such reality is the ~ 30 year bubble of post-war baby boomers that have entered retirement and have contributed to pushing the SS system a bit out of balance.

Consider dividing the population into three groups: A group between the ages of 0-30; a 30-60 age group; and a 60-90+ group, i.e, three generations. Certainly, it is a national goal to ensure the well being of all Americans regardless of which group they belong to. Who would argue with that? Nonetheless, about half of all Government spending currently is consumed by the 60-90+ age group...funds provided, essentially, by the other two groups.

Surely, securing the well being of the 60-90+ group is a national priority. But we are behaving as if it's the only national priority, rather than one of many. Unless some reasonable changes to 60-90+ government benefits are made it's the other two groups that will suffer in the long term...our kids and grandkids.

The operative words are "reasonable changes". There is no need for generational warfare. We can modify our very good senior benefit programs in a sensible way that benefits all Americans.
Reply With Quote
  #1331  
Old 08-15-2018, 10:11 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,692
Thanks: 1,565
Thanked 1,705 Times in 1,092 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Rasmussen Poll: Trump approval rating among black voters reaches 36%

Rasmussen Poll: Trump approval rating among black voters reaches 36%

August 15, 2018 KUSI Newsroom

WASHINGTON (KUSI) Ė A new Rasmussen poll shows that 49% of likely U.S. voters approve of President Trumpís job performance. The poll found that 49% also disapprove.
Furthermore, President Trumpís approval ratings among black voters has reached 36%. On this day last year, Trumpís approval among black voters was 19%.

https://www.kusi.com/rasmussen-poll-...rs-reaches-36/
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Mich Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
jack72 (08-16-2018)
  #1332  
Old 08-16-2018, 09:14 AM
cj's Avatar
cj cj is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,029
Thanks: 2,643
Thanked 3,380 Times in 1,772 Posts
cj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond repute
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Aq-iro9mpNBRhg

Cuomo with major gaffe. Put this on a loop for an ad during the next election cycle.
__________________
Give liberals an inch and they will take the country.
Opinions are like swampys, everybody has one.
We're America B!+c#

Last edited by cj; 08-16-2018 at 03:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to cj For This Totally Excellent Post:
Fudd (08-16-2018), Mich Flyer (08-16-2018)
  #1333  
Old 08-16-2018, 05:05 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Maybe the Senate is as spineless as I thought.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1L1270
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to IAFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
cj (08-16-2018), jack72 (08-17-2018), rollo (08-16-2018)
  #1334  
Old 08-16-2018, 05:16 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,692
Thanks: 1,565
Thanked 1,705 Times in 1,092 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
Maybe the Senate is as spineless as I thought.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1L1270
No surprise here. They are spineless. All the Democrats vote for it and a few Republicans like Flake go along. What a flake. Yes, the press is biased and lying constantly. They never say anything good about Trump but adored Obama. They are an arm of the Democrat party.
Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 08-16-2018, 05:47 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Mich Flyer View Post
No surprise here. They are spineless. All the Democrats vote for it and a few Republicans like Flake go along. What a flake. Yes, the press is biased and lying constantly. They never say anything good about Trump but adored Obama. They are an arm of the Democrat party.
The vote was unanimous...
Reply With Quote
  #1336  
Old 08-16-2018, 06:50 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,692
Thanks: 1,565
Thanked 1,705 Times in 1,092 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Biased

Unanimous that a free press is not the enemy of the people, but the main stream media is definitely biased. That is what Trump is complaining about.
Reply With Quote
  #1337  
Old 08-16-2018, 06:55 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Absurd!

Originally Posted by Mich Flyer View Post
No surprise here. They are spineless. All the Democrats vote for it and a few Republicans like Flake go along. What a flake. Yes, the press is biased and lying constantly. They never say anything good about Trump but adored Obama. They are an arm of the Democrat party.
Mich, that statement is beyond ridiculous. You're much too smart to really believe anything as absurd as that.

Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
The vote was unanimous...
Good to point out.
Reply With Quote
  #1338  
Old 08-16-2018, 07:00 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,692
Thanks: 1,565
Thanked 1,705 Times in 1,092 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Just like I said before: unanimous that a free press is not the enemy of the people, but the main stream media is definitely biased - DEMOCRAT,
Reply With Quote
4 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Mich Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
cralford (08-16-2018), IAFlyer (08-17-2018), JimBo (08-16-2018), Monster Man (08-16-2018)
  #1339  
Old 08-17-2018, 06:10 AM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,692
Thanks: 1,565
Thanked 1,705 Times in 1,092 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Mark Levin: How Did A Communist Like Brennan Get A Security Clearance? Trump Should Pull More Clearances

Mark Levin: How Did A Communist Like Brennan Get A Security Clearance? Trump Should Pull More Clearances.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...learances.html
Reply With Quote
  #1340  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:40 AM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Mich Flyer View Post
Just like I said before: unanimous that a free press is not the enemy of the people, but the main stream media is definitely biased - DEMOCRAT,
I agree that all "news" outlets today are biased. Many are biased to the Dems, but how is Fox not part of the mainstream media? They are and their bias is in the other direction.

However, being biased does not make them the enemy of the people. It does mean that we, as a people, need to use multiple sources to discern b/w facts and opinions/editorials.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to IAFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (08-17-2018)
  #1341  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:57 AM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: TeamPlex
Posts: 12,729
Thanks: 12,673
Thanked 11,286 Times in 5,054 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
FOX is a cable network...ABC, CBS, NBAC are over the airways networks. I know it's not 1975 anymore, but I consider 'mainstream' media to be the same as easily accessible media. FOX, on cable channel 360 is not the same as NBC (Ch. 2), CBS (Ch. 7) and ABC (Ch. 22).

But that's just my royal opinion....
__________________
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." Plato
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to rollo For This Totally Excellent Post:
JimBo (08-17-2018)
  #1342  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:35 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Really?

Originally Posted by rollo View Post
FOX is a cable network...ABC, CBS, NBAC are over the airways networks. I know it's not 1975 anymore, but I consider 'mainstream' media to be the same as easily accessible media. FOX, on cable channel 360 is not the same as NBC (Ch. 2), CBS (Ch. 7) and ABC (Ch. 22).

But that's just my royal opinion....
Do you really think that a significant percentage of households receive only broadcast channels? And is there a talk radio show having a listener base that comes close to Rush Limbaugh?
Reply With Quote
  #1343  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:40 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,691
Thanks: 2,489
Thanked 5,698 Times in 2,730 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Do you really think that a significant percentage of households receive only broadcast channels? And is there a talk radio show having a listener base that comes close to Rush Limbaugh?
I know a variety of people who cut the cord on cable and buy netflix or actually have an antennae to receive locally broadcast channels. I do wonder what percentage of the population has gone that route.
Reply With Quote
  #1344  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:47 AM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: TeamPlex
Posts: 12,729
Thanks: 12,673
Thanked 11,286 Times in 5,054 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Do you really think that a significant percentage of households receive only broadcast channels?
I never said or implied what you posted. What I'm saying is that more people equate and get their evening news from NBC, CBS and ABC, all who lean way left. And without looking up the TV ratings, I'll safely assume that Good Morning America and the other morning news programs have significantly higher ratings that FOX.


Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
And is there a talk radio show having a listener base that comes close to Rush Limbaugh?
And while Rush has a popular syndicated radio program, I doubt he's getting 20M+ listeners every day.

In other words, I would wager a royal ice cream sundae that significantly more people get their news from ABC+CBS+NBC than FOX+Rush.

I quickly pulled this off google...it's for the evening news, not morning, not Ellen, not The View, Not Colbert and all the other ABC/CBS/NBC pseudo liberal entertainment shows...

The averages for the week of August 6, 2018:

........................ABC ...............NBC ...........CBS
Total Viewers: 7,868,000 ... 7,262,000 ....5,450,000
A25-54: .........1,510,000 ...1,587,000 ...1,064,000


https://www.businessinsider.com/rush...u-think-2012-3
__________________
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." Plato

Last edited by rollo; 08-17-2018 at 10:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1345  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:57 AM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by rollo View Post
I never said or implied what you posted. What I'm saying is that more people equate and get their evening news from NBC, CBS and ABC, all who lean way left. And without looking up the TV ratings, I'll safely assume that Good Morning America and the other morning news programs have significantly higher ratings that FOX.




And while Rush has a popular syndicated radio program, I doubt he's getting 20M+ listeners every day.

In other words, I would wager a royal ice cream sundae that significantly more people get their news from ABC+CBS+NBC than FOX+Rush.

I quickly pulled this off google...it's for the evening news, not morning, not Ellen, not The View, Not Colbert and all the other ABC/CBS/NBC pseudo liberal entertainment shows...

The averages for the week of August 6, 2018:

........................ABC ...............NBC ...........CBS
Total Viewers: 7,868,000 ... 7,262,000 ....5,450,000
A25-54: .........1,510,000 ...1,587,000 ...1,064,000


https://www.businessinsider.com/rush...u-think-2012-3
If ABC is getting nearly 7.9 million viewers and only 1.5 million are b/w ages 25 and 54, that means that 6.4 million are over 55?
Reply With Quote
  #1346  
Old 08-17-2018, 12:19 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Point made....

Originally Posted by IAFlyer View Post
If ABC is getting nearly 7.9 million viewers and only 1.5 million are b/w ages 25 and 54, that means that 6.4 million are over 55?
The 25-54 age figure is odd. The total figures for the broadcast channels seem about right..and they are well above the cable news channels.

I do have a comment (an opinion) on the "way left" description of the three broadcast channels though. "Left", definitely. "Way left", I don't think so....it depends on where you stand.

I support Charles Krauthammer's definition of moderate politics being "played" between the 40 yard lines....either to the right or left. When you get outside the 40s your views are not "moderate".

Supporting that notion: Yesterday I had lunch with a very good friend of decades...possibly my best friend. I mentioned that I had voted in the CT Republican primary for governor, as had he. My life-long friend looked at me in amazement...."I thought you were a registered Democrat based on the things you say and the views you express". That cracked me up. I told him....my friend for decades,.. that he is so far right that just about everyone he comes in contact with appears liberal to him..including registered Republicans that "play" between the 40 yard lines but right of center.

Bottom line: In my opinion, NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news lean well to the left...but not outside the 40 yard line....not "way left". It appears that to more than a few Priders who reside in the "end zone" to the right of mid field, just about everyone else is liberal and surely all the MSM.

Last edited by UACFlyer; 08-17-2018 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
foolishpride (08-17-2018)
  #1347  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:14 PM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: TeamPlex
Posts: 12,729
Thanks: 12,673
Thanked 11,286 Times in 5,054 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
If ABC, CBS and NBC play between the 40s, why is there so much negative press about Trump from them, especially when compared to other Presidents? Here's an NPR article...not FOX...but the liberal arm of the radio airways.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/55509...her-presidents

"Fully two-thirds of news stories about Trump from his first 60 days in office were negative by that definition — more than twice the negativity seen in stories from the first 60 days of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama's presidencies."

And then there's this graphic from a Harvard study...





With this said, it's my royal opinion that ABC, NBC and CBS haven't crossed the 50 since early 2016 when the smartest man on the planet was ruling the civilized world.
__________________
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." Plato

Last edited by rollo; 08-17-2018 at 02:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
5 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to rollo For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (08-19-2018), cj (08-17-2018), ClaytonFlyerFan (08-17-2018), Mich Flyer (08-17-2018), Monster Man (08-17-2018)
  #1348  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:41 PM
IAFlyer's Avatar
IAFlyer IAFlyer is online now
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 3,974
Thanks: 5,935
Thanked 1,314 Times in 788 Posts
IAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeIAFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by rollo View Post
If ABC, CBS and NBC play between the 40s, why is there so much negative press about Trump from them, especially when compared to other Presidents? Here's an NPR article...not FOX...but the liberal arm of the radio airways.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/55509...her-presidents

"Fully two-thirds of news stories about Trump from his first 60 days in office were negative by that definition ó more than twice the negativity seen in stories from the first 60 days of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama's presidencies."

And then there's this graphic from a Harvard study...





With this said, it's my royal opinion that ABC, NBC and CBS haven't crossed the 50 since early 2016 when the smartest man on the planet was ruling the civilized world.
I'd say they haven't even approached the 50, much less cross it.

Note that GWB was in the NPR mix as well - and the left had major issues with his first victory as we all know (how's your chad hanging?).

I think essentially two things are at play - NBC, CBS, ABC are "hugging" the 40 yard line on the left, and Trump sets himself up - almost daily - with his Tweets.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to IAFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
foolishpride (08-17-2018), UACFlyer (08-17-2018)
  #1349  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:54 PM
ClaytonFlyerFan's Avatar
ClaytonFlyerFan ClaytonFlyerFan is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,133
Thanks: 4,815
Thanked 4,778 Times in 1,899 Posts
ClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond reputeClaytonFlyerFan has a reputation beyond repute
Trump could rush into a burning orphanage and single handily carry 99 kids out alive, but the media would roast him for the 1 who died.

Sad but true.

I have already dumped TV at one estate, and on the verge of doing it at the other if the Mrs. approves.
Reply With Quote
  #1350  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:00 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Coverage

Originally Posted by rollo View Post
If ABC, CBS and NBC play between the 40s, why is there so much negative press about Trump from them, especially when compared to other Presidents? Here's an NPR article...not FOX...but the liberal arm of the radio airways.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/55509...her-presidents

"Fully two-thirds of news stories about Trump from his first 60 days in office were negative by that definition ó more than twice the negativity seen in stories from the first 60 days of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama's presidencies."

And then there's this graphic from a Harvard study...





With this said, it's my royal opinion that ABC, NBC and CBS haven't crossed the 50 since early 2016 when the smartest man on the planet was ruling the civilized world.
rollo, the data you presented covered a very early period of Trump's presidency. Considering Trump, who he is, the man, is it any surprise that so much of the early coverage was negative compared to other presidents? Not to me.

Also, consider Trump's war against the media. These guys are human beings. Before they even sit down to write a story they're biased because the President treats them so very badly...."enemy of the people"! Outrageous!

The President treats anyone/everyone badly that does not kiss his @ss or otherwise do his bidding...be it senators, representatives, allied leaders, the media....all people whose support he badly needs to successfully execute his policies.

Of the dozen areas in the bar chart, the President deserves good marks, good coverage, for only two, i.e., coverage reflecting reality. Those are the "economy" and "terrorist threat". The jury is still out on all the other items,...with "economy" threatened if Trumps trade gambit sours.

The President would get more balanced coverage if he treated the media with respect and developed more of a familiarity with the truth when he speaks.
Reply With Quote
  #1351  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:41 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,691
Thanks: 2,489
Thanked 5,698 Times in 2,730 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
A few days ago, someone on television said that if Trump walked on water across the Potomac river, the press would write an article about how he can't swim.
Reply With Quote
  #1352  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:26 PM
JimBo JimBo is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Troy, OH
Posts: 2,176
Thanks: 3,065
Thanked 1,581 Times in 701 Posts
JimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond reputeJimBo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
The President would get more balanced coverage if he treated the media with respect and developed more of a familiarity with the truth when he speaks.
C'mon man, you cannot possibly believe this? President Bush treated the media with about as much "respect" as a President can and he got treated like garbage by them. The only difference between then and now is that Trump doesn't bend over and take it, so the media digs in even deeper. Any President with an R next to their name in this day and age, in this country, will never get treated with respect by the MSM. If you believe otherwise, you simply are not accepting, or living in, reality.

The second part of your comment is just ridiculous, but par for the course.
Reply With Quote
9 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to JimBo For This Totally Excellent Post:
Bat'71 (08-19-2018), cj (08-17-2018), ClaytonFlyerFan (08-18-2018), Fudd (08-17-2018), jack72 (08-18-2018), longtimefan (08-17-2018), Mich Flyer (08-18-2018), Monster Man (08-17-2018), shocka43 (08-18-2018)
  #1353  
Old 08-18-2018, 08:57 AM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 12,282
Thanks: 10,277
Thanked 5,662 Times in 3,222 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by JimBo View Post
C'mon man, you cannot possibly believe this? President Bush treated the media with about as much "respect" as a President can and he got treated like garbage by them. The only difference between then and now is that Trump doesn't bend over and take it, so the media digs in even deeper. Any President with an R next to their name in this day and age, in this country, will never get treated with respect by the MSM. If you believe otherwise, you simply are not accepting, or living in, reality.

The second part of your comment is just ridiculous, but par for the course.
Great point JimBo. It was sick how the media treated Bush. I am sure Trump saw that abuse and said, not me, ain't happening lying down.
Reply With Quote
  #1354  
Old Yesterday, 03:33 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,434
Thanks: 3,192
Thanked 3,757 Times in 2,277 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
McGahn's cooperation with Mueller...

The big news over the weekend was the NYT reporting that WH lawyer Don McGahn has met with Mueller's team for 30+ hours. This is a big deal.

The NYT take is that McGahn is afraid the he's being set up by Trump to take the fall...and wanted to get ahead of the story to protect himself. But the Times also reported that McGahn's lawyer said that Trump gave McGahn permission to speak with Mueller, thereby waiving executive privilege and requiring McGahn to answer any/all questions Mueller asked.

The WSJ this morning explained that "doesn't compute". If Trump had anything to hide why would he waive executive privilege and allow the WH lawyer to meet with Mueller? Nixon and Clinton both tried every legal trick in the book to protect executive privilege...yet Trump gives it up without batting an eye....it appears.

The Journal's bottom line: "Readers should remain skeptical about reporting on the Mueller probe, waiting to see the evidence he actually produces". Sounds like good advice.
____
Below I have copied a post in which I commented that Trump would get more balanced coverage if he were more truthful. JimBo blasted me commenting especially about what he referred to as "second part of my comment"...which I assume meant my reference to the President's truthfulness. About 500 Priders thanked JimBo for his excellent post.

In today's WSJ editorial in connection with the McGhan matter the Journal said that "Because Mr. Trump makes so many false statements, his claim that he has nothing to hide is assumed to be false". The Journal goes on to explain that in this case the President may be telling the truth.

My point in the post JimBo slammed was that way too much of the time the President simply is not truthful. That is exactly what the WSJ editorial board said in this morning's piece re McGhan's cooperation with Mueller.


Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Ö.The President would get more balanced coverage if he treated the media with respect and developed more of a familiarity with the truth when he speaks.
Originally Posted by JimBo View Post
C'mon man, you cannot possibly believe this?

The second part of your comment is just ridiculous, but par for the course.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
foolishpride (Yesterday), IAFlyer (Yesterday)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.