Elizabeth Warren says Barack Obama does not understand the “lived experience of most Americans”

[fskimospy]

How in the world has our nation bred a slew of simpletons?

So in the beginning, we tax everyone federally at 45% and then our kind political leaders will reduce that rate on the proletariat as time goes on? Are you aware that the income tax when first instituted was to be temporary? Thank goodness you folks are losing elections. We have escaped central planning yet again.

In all seriousness, have you ever considered moving to a country where the methodologies you desire are already in place? This is a huge country and it's going to be a big job trying to get it to where it's humming along utilizing your vision. Why not get out now and live the rest of your life in the peace and harmony you desire? The media will be happy to supply you with the propaganda you need to make that decision.

The Trump administration proposes a sizeable overhaul of the tax code one facet of which is reducing the tax brackets down to three. This is a big step in the direction you seek. Do you support that agenda? Or, would you prefer that 45% rate be implemented with the snap of a finger? I don't know about you, but there are a huge number of families that are living paycheck to paycheck that would wonder how they're going to survive when their tax rate suddenly triples. That $100 they have in the savings account isn't going to bridge that gap very far.

If you get a Sanders or Warren in the Presidency, how will their vision (your vision) be implemented? Will Congress just go along? Or would they become institutions with no power through some as yet unspecified process? The SCOTUS, them too? Will the uber rich leftists that finance their rise be happy to have their tax rate increased exponentially? If so, why is it that they didn't write big checks to the Treasury during the Obama years?

Here's the big question. Do you feel that your agenda is one that the voters as a whole desire?

Throughout recorded history we can see that there were dreamers and idiot dreamers. People with impractical dreams of a utopian existence. What we're experiencing today is no different except for the scale of the educated yet uneducated. Intellectual Yet Idiot By any chance were you good at taking exams? If so,,,

Boomerang thinks a giant tax cut is a big step in the direction of taxing people enough for UBI because it reduces the number of tax brackets and then repeatedly calls other people stupid.

You can't make this shit up.

As usual with boomerang it's a case of laughing at him through the facepalm. This poor guy, and the poor people who have to deal with him.

 

[agent00f]

Boomerang thinks a giant tax cut is a big step in the direction of taxing people enough for UBI because it reduces the number of tax brackets and then repeatedly calls other people stupid.

You can't make this shit up.

As usual with boomerang it's a case of laughing at him through the facepalm. This poor guy, and the poor people who have to deal with him.

Don't worry, Jaskalas will learn'em where all these libtards and gubmint educators have failed.

 

[Exterous]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that most of our elected leaders haven't "lived experience of most americans"

As for the Midwest being ignored - the number of jobs created by the middle of the country after a recession was the lowest ever under Obama. If your state isn't recovering and the party in the White House doesn't visit then that party is going to risk losing the state. You can get around that by having a great message but Hilary failed at that. You can say that the coasts are more important but the fly over states helped put Trump in the white house and here we are. He wasn't exactly a strong candidate so personally I would prefer if the Democrats rethought their campaigning habits rather than rely on Trump completely imploding which risks him getting re-elected.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that most of our elected leaders haven't "lived experience of most americans"

As for the Midwest being ignored - the number of jobs created by the middle of the country after a recession was the lowest ever under Obama. If your state isn't recovering and the party in the White House doesn't visit then that party is going to risk losing the state. You can get around that by having a great message but Hilary failed at that. You can say that the coasts are more important but the fly over states helped put Trump in the white house and here we are. He wasn't exactly a strong candidate so personally I would prefer if the Democrats rethought their campaigning habits rather than rely on Trump completely imploding which risks him getting re-elected.

Jobs created after a recession was the lowest ever? How did you arrive at that statistic?

 

[pauldun170]

If only these neglected areas had people that could represent them in government. For example, people they could nominate to go to the capital and help craft laws\policies that would benefit the people of that state.
Then, instead worrying about a President showing up for PR\photoshoots\rallies, those people that they would send to Washington would show up at the Presidents door. The nominated people could also work with others that have been sent by other states and work collectively and stuff.

I'm sure there are examples of it somewhere. I'll check buzzfeed and facebook later to see if someone has posted a meme.

 

[fskimospy]

If only these neglected areas had people that could represent them in government. For example, people they could nominate to go to the capital and help craft laws\policies that would benefit the people of that state.
Then, instead worrying about a President showing up for PR\photoshoots\rallies, those people that they would send to Washington would show up at the Presidents door. The nominated people could also work with others that have been sent by other states and work collectively and stuff.

I'm sure there are examples of it somewhere. I'll check buzzfeed and facebook later to see if someone has posted a meme.

Maybe we could help them more by giving them vastly greater representation per citizen than we do for coastal states.

Wait, we already do that too.

 

[Exterous]

Jobs created after a recession was the lowest ever?

You might want to re-read my post because thats not what I said. If a huge chunk of counties in the US sees more businesses close than open during a 4 year recovery period and the growth is overwhelmingly concentrated thats something that a political party needs to properly address or risk losing support.

http://eig.org/recoverymap

 

[fskimospy]

You might want to re-read my post because thats not what I said.

http://eig.org/recoverymap

I re-read it and it's definitely what you said. Here, I'll quote you:

As for the Midwest being ignored - the number of jobs created by the middle of the country after a recession was the lowest ever under Obama.

So again, can you tell me how you arrived at that? My strong suspicion is that it will require creative calculations or ignoring pertinent facts.

If a huge chunk of counties in the US sees more businesses close than open during a 4 year recovery period and the growth is overwhelmingly concentrated thats something that a political party needs to properly address or risk losing support.

If the number of jobs are increasing and the number of businesses are decreasing what does that say to you? To me, it says businesses are consolidating. It seems odd to elect a Republican if you are concerned about businesses consolidating, wouldn't you say?

 

[Jaskalas]

So in the beginning, we tax everyone federally at 45%...

I did say "that value", how we collect that much is entirely up for proposal. It could be adjusted to 30% for the lower half of income earners, and raised for higher income. I don't have figures on how many it'd apply to or how much that change yields, if it falls short we can make up some of it in other areas.

If we achieved 30% at lower income, an individual would have to earn above $40k to feel the sting of taxation. In exchange they have automatic unemployment, their kids have a "nest egg" that sets them up for housing, transport, and education, their whole family is medically insured, inner city neighbors aren't trying to cannibalize each other for scraps. Not to mention the benefits of a more stable economy, etc...

You asked "show me what can be accomplished by taking every last dollar". This is what we can do with just about half, or less.

Are you aware that the income tax when first instituted was to be temporary?

Of course. You might be surprised to learn that we don't live in that time period. Times change. Our people have needs that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. At least there are no alternatives on the table. You're free to present one. "Do nothing" doesn't help people pay their bills or financially survive a hospital.

Thank goodness you folks are losing elections. We have escaped central planning yet again.

Thank goodness we don't help people the way we should... is that it, are you proud of that?

 

[Jhhnn]

You might want to re-read my post because thats not what I said. If a huge chunk of counties in the US sees more businesses close than open during a 4 year recovery period and the growth is overwhelmingly concentrated thats something that a political party needs to properly address or risk losing support.

http://eig.org/recoverymap

You seem to forget that Repubs controlled Congress along with the statehouses & governorships of the States in question from 2010 forward.

You also seem to overlook the fact that the much revered Job Creators determine who gets hired when & where, not the govt.

Beyond all that, economic recovery has not been weak in the States in question, just in some parts of the States. Google "FRED employment (State)".

Explain how the federal govt is supposed to change that or just blame Obama & the Dems.

This election wasn't about economics at all. It was all about White fear, uncertainty, distrust & resentment, about how Repubs built that & about how Trump exploited it.

 

[pauldun170]

Of course. You might be surprised to learn that we don't live in that time period. Times change.

After a brief refresher here https://www.irs.com/articles/the-history-of-income-taxes

I got reminded of this article.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/

And then went here to grab historical trend
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
(Defense Spending since 1900)

Lets go back to old timey days when we had Military spending of 1%-1.5% of GDP, where health care was known as "Let doc down the road take a break from running his farm and give em a shot of mercury laced molasses and sit in warm bath " and the best way to take care of old people was to let their kids handle all that shit because old people smell like mothballs.

 

[Exterous]

I re-read it and it's definitely what you said.

No its absolutely NOT what I said. Your response was 'Jobs created after a recession was the lowest ever' which is NOT the same as saying its the lowest number of jobs created in the middle of the country. Your response includes the entire country. Mine very specifically excludes a large chunk of the country so its a logical impossibility for the two statements to be the same.

So again, can you tell me how you arrived at that? My strong suspicion is that it will require creative calculations or ignoring pertinent facts.

You can start with the link I provided which covers the last several recession recoveries

If the number of jobs are increasing and the number of businesses are decreasing what does that say to you? To me, it says businesses are consolidating. It seems odd to elect a Republican if you are concerned about businesses consolidating, wouldn't you say?

If you look at the link provided it shows that job creation is very tightly centralized. Looking at the country as a whole jobs are increasing but that leaves out large areas where there are consistent job losses. Given that most of the jobs were created in just 73 counties there are going to be a lot of voters who aren't seeing the effects of the recovery.

The smaller counties have seen their job creation rates fall off over the past three recoveries as well. In the ’90s recovery, less-populated counties accounted for more than 1 in 4 new jobs in the country. In the recovery beginning in 2002, that had fallen to 1 in 5. In this recovery, it is less than 1 in 10.

This isn't about whether its odd to elect a Republican this is about appealing to voters who feel left out. Sure some will be strongly for or against a candidate simply based on the letter by their name but there are enough voters out there who want attention to flip an election.

You seem to forget that Repubs controlled Congress along with the statehouses & governorships of the States in question from 2010 forward.

You also seem to overlook the fact that the much revered Job Creators determine who gets hired when & where, not the govt.

Beyond all that, economic recovery has not been weak in the States in question, just in some parts of the States. Google "FRED employment (State)".

Explain how the federal govt is supposed to change that or just blame Obama & the Dems.

Slow down there Sparky - you're off track. I never made any claim about who was in control of which elected position and where the blame should fall. I said there were voters up for grabs and one candidate made a better play for their vote than the other. Just because the overall state numbers are up that doesn't mean that enough voters see economic improvement enough to not flip or help flip the state. We could wish that voters saw things differently but the clear reality is that enough don't.

This election wasn't about economics at all. It was all about White fear, uncertainty, distrust & resentment, about how Repubs built that & about how Trump exploited it.

I still find it tough to believe that White Fear elected a white male over a white female when it couldn't prevent a black male from being elected over a white male. Economics always plays a part in elections although how much varies. I think there were a variety of reasons Hilary lost but I also think that not focusing enough on the economy of the middle of the country was one of them

Furthermore I don't see why there is such resistance to the idea that maybe the campaign was run incorrectly and that maybe some people felt left out and an unusually concentrated economic recovery could be part of the reason. I mean Hilary lost to Trump. Pointing to him and saying how terrible he is didn't help Hilary or saying how retarded and hateful Trump voters are doesn't seem to help. I mean sure we can all just hope that he implodes in a way that doesn't completely ruin the country but I would prefer the Dems figure out a better way

 

[fskimospy]

No its absolutely NOT what I said. Your response was 'Jobs created after a recession was the lowest ever' which is NOT the same as saying its the lowest number of jobs created in the middle of the country. Your response includes the entire country. Mine very specifically excludes a large chunk of the country so its a logical impossibility for the two statements to be the same.

In normal conversation unless the noun being discussed is explicitly changed it's usually assumed that we're still talking about the same thing. My response most certainly did not include the entire country in the scope of a normal conversation. So no, it's not only not a logical impossibility, it's the obvious conclusion.

You can start with the link I provided which covers the last several recession recoveries

Your link does not show what you claimed. In reality the midwest had the nation's lowest unemployment rate going into the election.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/features/2016/03/21/401901.htm

With that in mind, 'not focusing on the economy of the middle of the country' seems like a strange statement considering the economy in that area was quite strong by national standards.

If you look at the link provided it shows that job creation is very tightly centralized. Looking at the country as a whole jobs are increasing but that leaves out large areas where there are consistent job losses. Given that most of the jobs were created in just 73 counties there are going to be a lot of voters who aren't seeing the effects of the recovery.[

This isn't about whether its odd to elect a Republican this is about appealing to voters who feel left out. Sure some will be strongly for or against a candidate simply based on the letter by their name but there are enough voters out there who want attention to flip an election.

Sure it is. As I said, if business growth is low or nonexistent but overall employment is increasing that strongly indicates consolidation within industries. Republican policies promote (or more accurately do not stop) business consolidation so if that is your issue then voting for them seems like a foolish choice.

 

[First]

It's a direct quote from the article I posted so it seems your beef is more with the writer from salon.com than us.

Guess you should read the articles that you cite more closely, lol.

Have fun rationalizing President Trump since your side seems immune to accepting feedback from those whose votes it ostensibly seeks.

No rationalization required to thwart the failing presidency before us, even that much'll be self-evident to his few remaining supporters.

 

[Exterous]

In normal conversation unless the noun being discussed is explicitly changed it's usually assumed that we're still talking about the same thing.

In written interactions that is not considered to be the case. This is far closer to written interactions that 'normal conversation'

Your link does not show what you claimed. In reality the midwest had the nation's lowest unemployment rate going into the election.

While undefined I think we can both agree that the middle chunk would likely contain more than just the Midwest. Even then having low unemployment numbers does not preclude a weaker recovery than past recoveries. Midwest states like Ohio and Illinois are still down 200,000 jobs since 2007. There have also been some pretty big changes in the relationship between cities and jobs. Employment numbers aren't going to capture people who had to move to a city because all the jobs in their town dried up.

http://cityobservatory.org/city-center-jobs/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/05/23/mid-decade-big-city-growth-continues/

In any event people don't solely base their vote on raw overall numbers. There is a lot of emotion involved so when people see their lower local job numbers and see counties and towns decline or even not do as well as others its going to affect how they vote. We can debate the factors causing the shifts in trends but people are going to look for elected officials to take notice

 

[Jhhnn]

No its absolutely NOT what I said. Your response was 'Jobs created after a recession was the lowest ever' which is NOT the same as saying its the lowest number of jobs created in the middle of the country. Your response includes the entire country. Mine very specifically excludes a large chunk of the country so its a logical impossibility for the two statements to be the same.



You can start with the link I provided which covers the last several recession recoveries



If you look at the link provided it shows that job creation is very tightly centralized. Looking at the country as a whole jobs are increasing but that leaves out large areas where there are consistent job losses. Given that most of the jobs were created in just 73 counties there are going to be a lot of voters who aren't seeing the effects of the recovery.



This isn't about whether its odd to elect a Republican this is about appealing to voters who feel left out. Sure some will be strongly for or against a candidate simply based on the letter by their name but there are enough voters out there who want attention to flip an election.



Slow down there Sparky - you're off track. I never made any claim about who was in control of which elected position and where the blame should fall. I said there were voters up for grabs and one candidate made a better play for their vote than the other. Just because the overall state numbers are up that doesn't mean that enough voters see economic improvement enough to not flip or help flip the state. We could wish that voters saw things differently but the clear reality is that enough don't.



I still find it tough to believe that White Fear elected a white male over a white female when it couldn't prevent a black male from being elected over a white male. Economics always plays a part in elections although how much varies. I think there were a variety of reasons Hilary lost but I also think that not focusing enough on the economy of the middle of the country was one of them

Furthermore I don't see why there is such resistance to the idea that maybe the campaign was run incorrectly and that maybe some people felt left out and an unusually concentrated economic recovery could be part of the reason. I mean Hilary lost to Trump. Pointing to him and saying how terrible he is didn't help Hilary or saying how retarded and hateful Trump voters are doesn't seem to help. I mean sure we can all just hope that he implodes in a way that doesn't completely ruin the country but I would prefer the Dems figure out a better way

Nice bit of dodging all the way around. Right wing agitprop over a period of decades created the fear, uncertainty, distrust & resentment I mentioned. Trump exploited it with an audacity that those who created it were afraid to use. Trumpism is an upwelling of that ugliness, a giant Fuck You! to the rest of America & the world.

 

[Jhhnn]

In any event people don't solely base their vote on raw overall numbers. There is a lot of emotion involved so when people see their lower local job numbers and see counties and towns decline its going to affect how they vote. We can debate the factors causing the shifts in trends but people are going to look for elected officials to take notice

So, uhh, why is that happening? It's the will of the Job Creators. So voting for the Party that best represents them isn't a rational thing to do at all. It only seems that way if your mind has been tweaked in ways you can't understand.

 

[trenchfoot]

Maybe we could help them more by giving them vastly greater representation per citizen than we do for coastal states.

Wait, we already do that too.

How coincidental it is that strategic jigsaw puzzle gerrymandering, voter suppression/disenfranchisement and coded messaging alluding to threats from minorities and outsiders are tools of the trade that the GOP use that produces the same net effect for folks who vote Republican.

And how suspiciously coincidental it is that when rule by the majority became a disadvantage for the Repubs, they really cranked up their efforts to reverse that rule where the minority they are becoming/have become is supposed to have rule over the majority.

 

[Exterous]

Nice bit of dodging all the way around. Right wing agitprop over a period of decades created the fear, uncertainty, distrust & resentment I mentioned.

Dodging what? You telling me who was in control of congress hardly relates to what other voters did. I also haven't seen anything that really supports the "White Fear" claim either.

So, uhh, why is that happening?

Because the Republican's campaign\message was better. The Democrats road the "Look how bad he is" line pretty hard and the "hate" and "stupid" cards came out pretty fast from supporters. The validity of those positions doesn't really matter because the fact is that it failed. Sure you can double down on the "We didn't disparage them enough" line but that seems pretty risky to me. There is a lot of "You can't tell me what to do" and "I'll show you" out there making insults a great way to get people defensive and unwilling to change their position. I suspect Trump will be bad enough that the Democrats will win the next election but if they really want to look down the road this is a great opportunity to make big gains in support. I don't even think they would need to change a lot of policy or viewpoints - just change the conversation being had.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dodging what? You telling me who was in control of congress hardly relates to what other voters did. I also haven't seen anything that really supports the "White Fear" claim either.

If it's not about white fear then why do they love the wall, love military spending, hate illegals, Muslims & the World Economy? What basis is there for isolationism if not fear?

Because the Republican's campaign\message was better. The Democrats road the "Look how bad he is" line pretty hard and the "hate" and "stupid" cards came out pretty fast from supporters. The validity of those positions doesn't really matter because the fact is that it failed. Sure you can double down on the "We didn't disparage them enough" line but that seems pretty risky to me. There is a lot of "You can't tell me what to do" and "I'll show you" out there making insults a great way to get people defensive and unwilling to change their position. I suspect Trump will be bad enough that the Democrats will win the next election but if they really want to look down the road this is a great opportunity to make big gains in support. I don't even think they would need to change a lot of policy or viewpoints - just change the conversation being had.

Trump played to the resentment Repubs had built in their base for decades, summoned the dark side of the American character & exalted it.

 

[pauldun170]

Bit off more than i could chew looking up info today.
Had to pull the "More than 5 lines, didn't read card"

Had some nice graphs and appeared to contain interesting stuff. It's in English, so that helps.

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-cities-for-jobs/2173/
http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.2uslabor.pdf
https://www.bls.gov/mlr/2006/03/art3full.pdf
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/american-labor-in-the-20th-century.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ing-reality-of-long-term-unemployment/274957/
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2015/long-term-unemployment/