Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[BDKJMU]

[UNI88]

Depends on how you want to read the graph.

I think it's pretty telling, and I'd say positive, that from 1970 to 2021, the percentage of people considered "low income" dropped from 25% to 10%. That's awesome, people are moving upwards in large numbers. And it doesn't stop there, the percentage of people in the "high income" bracket moved from 14% to 29%. How's that not awesome too? Kinda goes directly against the narrative that people can't move upwards in American society as defined by income - people are moving and mostly moving upwards. Yay America. Wonder how other countries look and if they have anything close to this upward movement in society.

One of us is misreading the graph. I see it as the percentage of people considered low income went from 25% in 1970/71 to 29% in 2021. The lighter shade of each color is 1970/71 and the darker shade is 2021. The good news is that the percentage of people considered high income went from 14% in 1970/71 to 21% in 2021. The quality of life of low income people then and now should also be considered.

Upward mobility is a thing. That might change if MAGAts have their way and gut public education and continue their war on business and commerce, making America no longer the land of opportunity.

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

[UNI88]

The MAGAt "I love my country and want to protect it" person looks kind of like Michael Jackson. More proof that MAGAts are groomers and child molesters.

[GannonFan]

Depends on how you want to read the graph.

I think it's pretty telling, and I'd say positive, that from 1970 to 2021, the percentage of people considered "low income" dropped from 25% to 10%. That's awesome, people are moving upwards in large numbers. And it doesn't stop there, the percentage of people in the "high income" bracket moved from 14% to 29%. How's that not awesome too? Kinda goes directly against the narrative that people can't move upwards in American society as defined by income - people are moving and mostly moving upwards. Yay America. Wonder how other countries look and if they have anything close to this upward movement in society.

One of us is misreading the graph. I see it as the percentage of people considered low income went from 25% in 1970/71 to 29% in 2021. The lighter shade of each color is 1970/71 and the darker shade is 2021. The good news is that the percentage of people considered high income went from 14% in 1970/71 to 21% in 2021. The quality of life of low income people then and now should also be considered.

Upward mobility is a thing. That might change if MAGAts have their way and gut public education and continue their war on business and commerce, making America no longer the land of opportunity.

My bad, you're correct. The percentage of low income people did increase by 4%. Middle income folks dropped by 11%, with the higher income folks increasing by 7%. So movement, mostly up, but with a smaller number falling behind. Good catch.

[kalm]

I’m open to what you’re laying down but it’s your idea so you can support it further with additional stats if you’d like. If not…no biggie.

It was your idea for the household spending stuff - or is someone else posting for you these days?

It was your idea to oversimplify with one metric that’s obviously related to a few others.

It’s not just about inflation and MMT. (BTW, I’m not huge fan of either as well).

Support your claim…or not. It should be easy but it’s up to you. I won’t judge if you’d rather not.

[GannonFan]

It was your idea for the household spending stuff - or is someone else posting for you these days?

It was your idea to oversimplify with one metric that’s obviously related to a few others.

It’s not just about inflation and MMT. (BTW, I’m not huge fan of either as well).

Support your claim…or not. It should be easy but it’s up to you. I won’t judge if you’d rather not.

My claim was simply looking at the graph you provided, which specifically looked at household income and divided it into low, middle, and high, and making an observation that the cumulative progression from 1970 to now was that people were moving upwards. That's true, even with UNI's correction to my mistake. That's not oversimplifying, it's just reading a graph.

You suggested that we look at other things, such as household spending. I just assumed since you brought it up that you would also then have the data we could look at. And now you seem way too defensive about it when asked for it and seem to think I claimed something other than what I did.

Again, my interpretation was that, as a measure of income as noted on the graph, that the net shift has been upward for America over the past 50 years. That doesn't seem to be in dispute unless you have something else to bring to the table.

[kalm]

It was your idea to oversimplify with one metric that’s obviously related to a few others.

It’s not just about inflation and MMT. (BTW, I’m not huge fan of either as well).

Support your claim…or not. It should be easy but it’s up to you. I won’t judge if you’d rather not.

My claim was simply looking at the graph you provided, which specifically looked at household income and divided it into low, middle, and high, and making an observation that the cumulative progression from 1970 to now was that people were moving upwards. That's true, even with UNI's correction to my mistake. That's not oversimplifying, it's just reading a graph.

You suggested that we look at other things, such as household spending. I just assumed since you brought it up that you would also then have the data we could look at. And now you seem way too defensive about it when asked for it and seem to think I claimed something other than what I did.

Again, my interpretation was that, as a measure of income as noted on the graph, that the net shift has been upward for America over the past 50 years. That doesn't seem to be in dispute unless you have something else to bring to the table.

“How is (this post) not awesome?”

[GannonFan]

My claim was simply looking at the graph you provided, which specifically looked at household income and divided it into low, middle, and high, and making an observation that the cumulative progression from 1970 to now was that people were moving upwards. That's true, even with UNI's correction to my mistake. That's not oversimplifying, it's just reading a graph.

You suggested that we look at other things, such as household spending. I just assumed since you brought it up that you would also then have the data we could look at. And now you seem way too defensive about it when asked for it and seem to think I claimed something other than what I did.

Again, my interpretation was that, as a measure of income as noted on the graph, that the net shift has been upward for America over the past 50 years. That doesn't seem to be in dispute unless you have something else to bring to the table.

“How is (this post) not awesome?”

If all you want to do is troll and post drive-bys, you're doing a great job. I thought there was more to you, but I can certainly reconsider.

[kalm]

“How is (this post) not awesome?”

If all you want to do is troll and post drive-bys, you're doing a great job. I thought there was more to you, but I can certainly reconsider.

You’re either unaware of the thinly veiled snark (“How is this not awesome?”) in you’re original reply (which I respectfully replied to) or you sir, are the troll.

[GannonFan]

If all you want to do is troll and post drive-bys, you're doing a great job. I thought there was more to you, but I can certainly reconsider.

You’re either unaware of the thinly veiled snark (“How is this not awesome?”) in you’re original reply (which I respectfully replied to) or you sir, are the troll.

No snark in my original reply. I do use the word awesome on occasion and I thought the data was positive enough to warrant the word. Still do actually. And I never troll.

[kalm]

You’re either unaware of the thinly veiled snark (“How is this not awesome?”) in you’re original reply (which I respectfully replied to) or you sir, are the troll.

No snark in my original reply. I do use the word awesome on occasion and I thought the data was positive enough to warrant the word. Still do actually. And I never troll.

Sure.

[Winterborn]

Depends on how you want to read the graph.

I think it's pretty telling, and I'd say positive, that from 1970 to 2021, the percentage of people considered "low income" dropped from 25% to 10%. That's awesome, people are moving upwards in large numbers. And it doesn't stop there, the percentage of people in the "high income" bracket moved from 14% to 29%. How's that not awesome too? Kinda goes directly against the narrative that people can't move upwards in American society as defined by income - people are moving and mostly moving upwards. Yay America. Wonder how other countries look and if they have anything close to this upward movement in society.

One of us is misreading the graph. I see it as the percentage of people considered low income went from 25% in 1970/71 to 29% in 2021. The lighter shade of each color is 1970/71 and the darker shade is 2021. The good news is that the percentage of people considered high income went from 14% in 1970/71 to 21% in 2021. The quality of life of low income people then and now should also be considered.

Upward mobility is a thing. That might change if MAGAts have their way and gut public education and continue their war on business and commerce, making America no longer the land of opportunity.

You could just as well put illibrials in the same spot as MAGAt's. Both twist science, follow dogma, and generally don't care about anybody outside of their particular tent. Neither side want's opportunity but to stick it to the other.

[Winterborn]

“How is (this post) not awesome?”

If all you want to do is troll and post drive-bys, you're doing a great job. I thought there was more to you, but I can certainly reconsider.

Easier to argumentative when trolling.

[kalm]

One of us is misreading the graph. I see it as the percentage of people considered low income went from 25% in 1970/71 to 29% in 2021. The lighter shade of each color is 1970/71 and the darker shade is 2021. The good news is that the percentage of people considered high income went from 14% in 1970/71 to 21% in 2021. The quality of life of low income people then and now should also be considered.

Upward mobility is a thing. That might change if MAGAts have their way and gut public education and continue their war on business and commerce, making America no longer the land of opportunity.

You could just as well put illibrials in the same spot as MAGAt's. Both twist science, follow dogma, and generally don't care about anybody outside of their particular tent. Neither side want's opportunity but to stick it to the other.

I think the data indicates a shrinking middle class. I’m also concerned about a diminished ability to afford college, healthcare, retirement with dignity, etc.

My parents and their peer group were able to achieve these as well luxury items like vacation homes on modest teachers, professors, retired air force salaries. My sense is many of those things are no longer achievable today. I don’t care where the ideas come from as long as they’re ideas that have a proven track record of success.

[UNI88]

One of us is misreading the graph. I see it as the percentage of people considered low income went from 25% in 1970/71 to 29% in 2021. The lighter shade of each color is 1970/71 and the darker shade is 2021. The good news is that the percentage of people considered high income went from 14% in 1970/71 to 21% in 2021. The quality of life of low income people then and now should also be considered.

Upward mobility is a thing. That might change if MAGAts have their way and gut public education and continue their war on business and commerce, making America no longer the land of opportunity.

You could just as well put illibrials in the same spot as MAGAt's. Both twist science, follow dogma, and generally don't care about anybody outside of their particular tent. Neither side want's opportunity but to stick it to the other.

Completely agree. They're different sides of the same coin. Crusading zealots trying to force their moral standards on everyone. Neither wanting to respect or consider other opinions and perspectives.

[UNI88]

You could just as well put illibrials in the same spot as MAGAt's. Both twist science, follow dogma, and generally don't care about anybody outside of their particular tent. Neither side want's opportunity but to stick it to the other.

I think the data indicates a shrinking middle class. I’m also concerned about a diminished ability to afford college, healthcare, retirement with dignity, etc.

My parents and their peer group were able to achieve these as well luxury items like vacation homes on modest teachers, professors, retired air force salaries. My sense is many of those things are no longer achievable today. I don’t care where the ideas come from as long as they’re ideas that have a proven track record of success.

There are valid reasons to be concerned about the future of our youth and their ability to build wealth through homeownership. Some of that is due to their personal choices and spending habits and some of it is due to the rising cost of homes, autos, etc.

It is also worth considering whether the past 75 years were an anomaly and we're simply returning to historical norms. In which case you're attempting to deny (social) science.

[kalm]

I think the data indicates a shrinking middle class. I’m also concerned about a diminished ability to afford college, healthcare, retirement with dignity, etc.

My parents and their peer group were able to achieve these as well luxury items like vacation homes on modest teachers, professors, retired air force salaries. My sense is many of those things are no longer achievable today. I don’t care where the ideas come from as long as they’re ideas that have a proven track record of success.

There are valid reasons to be concerned about the future of our youth and their ability to build wealth through homeownership. Some of that is due to their personal choices and spending habits and some of it is due to the rising cost of homes, autos, etc.

It is also worth considering whether the past 75 years were an anomaly and we're simply returning to historical norms. In which case you're attempting to deny (social) science.

You’re probably right.

[Winterborn]

I think the data indicates a shrinking middle class. I’m also concerned about a diminished ability to afford college, healthcare, retirement with dignity, etc.

My parents and their peer group were able to achieve these as well luxury items like vacation homes on modest teachers, professors, retired air force salaries. My sense is many of those things are no longer achievable today. I don’t care where the ideas come from as long as they’re ideas that have a proven track record of success.

There are valid reasons to be concerned about the future of our youth and their ability to build wealth through homeownership. Some of that is due to their personal choices and spending habits and some of it is due to the rising cost of homes, autos, etc.

It is also worth considering whether the past 75 years were an anomaly and we're simply returning to historical norms. In which case you're attempting to deny (social) science.

Agree and I am very concerned about upward mobility and building wealth (I would like to retire someday after all) and it concerns me that Politicians keep on putting roadblocks and restricting freedoms. Republicans have definitely been catching up to the bad habits that Democrats have been employing during my lifetime, so no side is immune from blame, but from a regulatory standpoint and a cost of business nobody holds a candle to keeping people from realizing their dreams like the D's. It is almost like they want people to fail so they can swoop in and be their savior.

From his inauguration to March 24, 2023, President Joe Biden increased the regulatory paperwork obligation by 220 million hours, reports American Action Forum's Dan Goldbeck.

The regulatory paperwork burden under Biden "exceeds the combined total accumulated under Obama and Trump in their opening years," Goldbeck says. If that number seems incomprehensibly large, he notes that it equates to "roughly 25,000 years" of filling out forms and other compliance tasks.

https://reason.com/2023/05/01/president ... arsely-api

[kalm]

There are valid reasons to be concerned about the future of our youth and their ability to build wealth through homeownership. Some of that is due to their personal choices and spending habits and some of it is due to the rising cost of homes, autos, etc.

It is also worth considering whether the past 75 years were an anomaly and we're simply returning to historical norms. In which case you're attempting to deny (social) science.

Agree and I am very concerned about upward mobility and building wealth (I would like to retire someday after all) and it concerns me that Politicians keep on putting roadblocks and restricting freedoms. Republicans have definitely been catching up to the bad habits that Democrats have been employing during my lifetime, so no side is immune from blame, but from a regulatory standpoint and a cost of business nobody holds a candle to keeping people from realizing their dreams like the D's. It is almost like they want people to fail so they can swoop in and be their savior.

From his inauguration to March 24, 2023, President Joe Biden increased the regulatory paperwork obligation by 220 million hours, reports American Action Forum's Dan Goldbeck.

The regulatory paperwork burden under Biden "exceeds the combined total accumulated under Obama and Trump in their opening years," Goldbeck says. If that number seems incomprehensibly large, he notes that it equates to "roughly 25,000 years" of filling out forms and other compliance tasks.

https://reason.com/2023/05/01/president ... arsely-api

As a former small business owner and manager in a highly D controlled regulatory state but with a R controlled local government I disagree.

They both suck.

Then again, given the large population and dishonesty of too many companies and threats to the environment and public health (not to mention monopolistic practices) I understand the need for regulation.

My brother just told me about some heavy industrial company that was caught dumping waste into a slough on a game refuge near his place. They were fined 200 million for the damages. If more companies acted more responsibly we wouldn’t need as many regulations. That’s not a D or R problem exclusively.

Here’s a lefty counter to your Reason article:

Dwight Eisenhower created the Small Business Administration to “aid, counsel, assist, and protect insofar as is possible the interests of small-business concerns.”

He signed a massive expansion of Social Security to take the pension/retirement onus off small- and medium-sized employers, increased the minimum wage so a prospering working class could purchase the products of American manufacturers, and built low-income housing across the nation to end the homeless “hobo” problem left over from the Republican Great Depression.

Eisenhower created from scratch the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to build a healthy and well-educated workforce, while Richard Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Agency into law to save the lives of American workers being killed by toxic pesticides and other chemicals (the agency’s creation was provoked by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring).

Today’s GOP opposes all of these programs and agencies. They only support the largest American companies and the richest citizens.

When Trump was president, he rolled back regulation of toxic pesticides known to cause brain damage to children, and one of his first official acts in office was to end the prohibition of coal mines dumping their toxic waste and tailings into America’s rivers, polluting downstream water supplies with cancer-causing chemicals.

Republicans keep business costs absurdly high

Arguably, the best policy possible for American businesses of all sizes is the Medicare For All program promoted for decades by progressive Democrats.

Back in 2004, Toyota announced they’d be opening a new factory in North America. Three southern US states offered them billions in tax advantages and free land, with the Republican governor of Alabama openly bragging about how cheaply his citizens would work for the company.

But in the end, in 2005, Toyota announced they’d be building the factory in Ontario, Canada because US healthcare costs are nearly twice those of Canada, which has had a successful Medicare For All system in place for more than a half-century (as I lay out in The Hidden History of American Healthcare: Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich).

Since then, as Republicans (and a few bought-off Democrats) continue to fight any effort to establish a national healthcare or health insurance system, the company has built two more North American factories in Canada.

If it wasn’t for Republican obstruction, they would’ve been built here and the jobs would be here.

https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartm ... medium=web

[kalm]

We missed out on the possibility of trauma stations when I was a kid.

[Winterborn]

As a former small business owner and manager in a highly D controlled regulatory state but with a R controlled local government I disagree.

They both suck.

Then again, given the large population and dishonesty of too many companies and threats to the environment and public health (not to mention monopolistic practices) I understand the need for regulation.

My brother just told me about some heavy industrial company that was caught dumping waste into a slough on a game refuge near his place. They were fined 200 million for the damages. If more companies acted more responsibly we wouldn’t need as many regulations. That’s not a D or R problem exclusively.

Here’s a lefty counter to your Reason article:

Dwight Eisenhower created the Small Business Administration to “aid, counsel, assist, and protect insofar as is possible the interests of small-business concerns.”

He signed a massive expansion of Social Security to take the pension/retirement onus off small- and medium-sized employers, increased the minimum wage so a prospering working class could purchase the products of American manufacturers, and built low-income housing across the nation to end the homeless “hobo” problem left over from the Republican Great Depression.

Eisenhower created from scratch the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to build a healthy and well-educated workforce, while Richard Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Agency into law to save the lives of American workers being killed by toxic pesticides and other chemicals (the agency’s creation was provoked by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring).

Today’s GOP opposes all of these programs and agencies. They only support the largest American companies and the richest citizens.

When Trump was president, he rolled back regulation of toxic pesticides known to cause brain damage to children, and one of his first official acts in office was to end the prohibition of coal mines dumping their toxic waste and tailings into America’s rivers, polluting downstream water supplies with cancer-causing chemicals.

Republicans keep business costs absurdly high

Arguably, the best policy possible for American businesses of all sizes is the Medicare For All program promoted for decades by progressive Democrats.

Back in 2004, Toyota announced they’d be opening a new factory in North America. Three southern US states offered them billions in tax advantages and free land, with the Republican governor of Alabama openly bragging about how cheaply his citizens would work for the company.

But in the end, in 2005, Toyota announced they’d be building the factory in Ontario, Canada because US healthcare costs are nearly twice those of Canada, which has had a successful Medicare For All system in place for more than a half-century (as I lay out in The Hidden History of American Healthcare: Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich).

Since then, as Republicans (and a few bought-off Democrats) continue to fight any effort to establish a national healthcare or health insurance system, the company has built two more North American factories in Canada.

If it wasn’t for Republican obstruction, they would’ve been built here and the jobs would be here.

https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartm ... medium=web

I can get behind the argument (from a small business side) they both suck. From a large business, regulatory standpoint, the current D's are much worse. The current EPA has proposed rule making that would effectively shutter half of our coal and gas fired power plants. Going to be hard to charge all those electric cars that we are supposed to buy, no?

I have no problem with some of what the EPA has done in the past, I think they were needed, but the current crop is justifying their paychecks and has gone beyond correcting a wrong to actively hindering the U.S. economy. The EPA has its place, but it needs guidelines and to stay in those guidelines. Your ignorance on what the EPA and other agencies actually do, is limiting your understanding of the topic (you’re not unique here, most of America doesn’t realize the impact on their day to day lives these agencies have). There is a massive difference in having blank permission to build a product while meeting certain regulatory rules and having to ask permission to even get started due so much regulatory oversight (we are very close to having to do this under the current rulemaking proposals). You complain about cost and corruption (validly) but yet ignore the cost the government adds to every single product by having onerous regulations who’s cost just gets passed on to the consumer and thereby reducing their spending power. Back to my reason.com article, who do you think is going to pay for those 220 million extra hours of regulatory paperwork that Biden added in two years? Those rich, evil corporations (your words) or the people who buy their products? Nothing happens in a vacuum.

And not all business are dishonest, the vast majority are not and do their best for their consumers and the environment they operate in. I work in the regulatory side of things with multiple Fortune 500 companies and your push of everybody is corrupt gets to be tiresome to read to be frank. I also take it that you never did read the WSJ article I put on here about the true cost of socialized medicine. I have Canadian relatives and guess where they come for anything serious? I will give you a hint, it isn’t their system.

Thom Hartmann is an idiot and his message is straight up your ally of a gluten free version of socialism lite (and yes I read the entire article just to see how far he goes down his particular gospel. I got a good chuckle out of it). I try to ignore the R’s and D’s beside people’s names and look at what they did from a does this increase people’s freedom or decrease it. I don’t agree with everything past presidents did on both sides nor do I disagree with what they did, true freedom doesn’t care about political party.

One should be careful of what they wish for, because they just might get it.

[kalm]

As a former small business owner and manager in a highly D controlled regulatory state but with a R controlled local government I disagree.

They both suck.

Then again, given the large population and dishonesty of too many companies and threats to the environment and public health (not to mention monopolistic practices) I understand the need for regulation.

My brother just told me about some heavy industrial company that was caught dumping waste into a slough on a game refuge near his place. They were fined 200 million for the damages. If more companies acted more responsibly we wouldn’t need as many regulations. That’s not a D or R problem exclusively.

Here’s a lefty counter to your Reason article:




https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartm ... medium=web

I can get behind the argument (from a small business side) they both suck. From a large business, regulatory standpoint, the current D's are much worse. The current EPA has proposed rule making that would effectively shutter half of our coal and gas fired power plants. Going to be hard to charge all those electric cars that we are supposed to buy, no?

I have no problem with some of what the EPA has done in the past, I think they were needed, but the current crop is justifying their paychecks and has gone beyond correcting a wrong to actively hindering the U.S. economy. The EPA has its place, but it needs guidelines and to stay in those guidelines. Your ignorance on what the EPA and other agencies actually do, is limiting your understanding of the topic (you’re not unique here, most of America doesn’t realize the impact on their day to day lives these agencies have). There is a massive difference in having blank permission to build a product while meeting certain regulatory rules and having to ask permission to even get started due so much regulatory oversight (we are very close to having to do this under the current rulemaking proposals). You complain about cost and corruption (validly) but yet ignore the cost the government adds to every single product by having onerous regulations who’s cost just gets passed on to the consumer and thereby reducing their spending power. Back to my reason.com article, who do you think is going to pay for those 220 million extra hours of regulatory paperwork that Biden added in two years? Those rich, evil corporations (your words) or the people who buy their products? Nothing happens in a vacuum.

And not all business are dishonest, the vast majority are not and do their best for their consumers and the environment they operate in. I work in the regulatory side of things with multiple Fortune 500 companies and your push of everybody is corrupt gets to be tiresome to read to be frank. I also take it that you never did read the WSJ article I put on here about the true cost of socialized medicine. I have Canadian relatives and guess where they come for anything serious? I will give you a hint, it isn’t their system.

Thom Hartmann is an idiot and his message is straight up your ally of a gluten free version of socialism lite (and yes I read the entire article just to see how far he goes down his particular gospel. I got a good chuckle out of it). I try to ignore the R’s and D’s beside people’s names and look at what they did from a does this increase people’s freedom or decrease it. I don’t agree with everything past presidents did on both sides nor do I disagree with what they did, true freedom doesn’t care about political party.

One should be careful of what they wish for, because they just might get it.

Well to be frank, I never everybody is too corrupt. I said too many companies are corrupt. Or put another way, there’s enough corporate malfeasance that the regulatory state continues to grow by necessity.

I don’t expect you to like Hartmann. I posted his facts as a counter to Reason (which, like Hartmann gets some things wrong and some right, and also has an axe to grind). One thing I appreciate has been Hartmann’s willingness to have libertarians including some writers from Reason on for debates many times through the years. They are typically engaging but respectful discussions.

I choose to not dismiss either out of hand. Reason’s ideas challenge my thinking…something I rather appreciate.