Re: The Serious Side

by party animal - not! Tue 01 Nov 2016, 19:05

Wise, wise words, Way2

(Oh, and a spot of alliteration to go with it.........)

Is there anything anyone can do about this at this late stage?

Harry Reid has weighed in along with Bill Weld and others, but what can they do about it - and how long will it take?

One thing I guess is for sure. Comey may not have a job for much longer.............

by ladybugcngc Tue 01 Nov 2016, 19:55

I've watched the last 16 years. Eight ran by Republicans, eight ran by Democrats. All 16 years I've seen U.S. Oil - Corporate Business run our government both Democrats and Republicans. I agree, I can not see partisan politics as a motive here.

I find this conversation interesting because we are talking about the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They know the threat. I know our country is in the cross-hairs with Hillary as President. I'm sure those actually running our government they are not happy with Comey.

by ladybugcngc Tue 01 Nov 2016, 20:17

Gov. Mike Huckabee President 2016 miracle write-in win.

by Fingersandtoes Tue 01 Nov 2016, 20:38

There's so much mist around the real info around this election, and it's there to confuse people. This latest email investigation is just that, smoke screen and distracton. Trump has not brought forward any factual policy ideas, no plans at all. His vp candidate has a lot of plans for pregnant women, though. Trump has threatened to use the court system to go after anyone opposing him, if he's elected. But yes, let's talk about Hilary's emails, that she didn't send, didn't come frm her server, and were already investigated.

People outside of the US are just hoping this election doesn't go horribly wrong, and the orange idiot doesnt become the president of the US.

by ladybugcngc Tue 01 Nov 2016, 20:51

People outside the United State should be concerned about the threat by those who seek to gain control of global wealth.

by What Would He Say Wed 02 Nov 2016, 13:41

Just a few thoughts....from The Outside USA.....IF Mr Trump makes it in, how long do you think he will last???....

He is not a career politician, so would find the constraints hard if not impossible....I watched a BBC documentary "Obama's White House", a fly on the wall look at the Presidency-ish....It seemed pretty damn impossible to get anything done...whether the President want's it or not....

The Don might want a few walls here and there...but getting it past is a very different thing.....I doubt he is used to being told NO...He surrounds himself with Yes men...money does that...

I also wonder what the fall out will be if he is not elected....Will he be consoled in the arms of Putin....As George said "You don't poke the Bear".....and look what happened to him....

Further, how will Hillary face forward as a President, back in the day as trusted Senator who operated an internet server behind her Presidents(Obama's) back...will it make her suspicious of like behaviour from her cabinet.....She is looking tired (who wouldn't) and I wonder if the fight is more personal than political....Is living your dream worth shortening your life for....People close have let her down, this more than anything Trump can do or say must fracture her ambition.....

BTW...has anyone ever seen Huma and Amal in the same room at the same time...Or do they just share sleeveless Jackets...

by annemarie Wed 02 Nov 2016, 17:09

Trump campaign condemns repulsive kkk newspapers support, says nominee denounces hate.

Really, yeah he denounces days before the election.

http://people.com/politics/trump-campaign-condemns-repulsive-kkk-newspapers-support-says-nominee-denounces-hate/

by annemarie Wed 02 Nov 2016, 17:15

Susan Sarandon has endorsed Jill Stein for President.

by Donnamarie Wed 02 Nov 2016, 17:22

The Trump campaign says it denounces hate in any form. Try telling that to all the charming folks who show up at his rallys. A big chunk of his campaign has been about the hatred of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Not surprised by Sarandon's endorsement of Stein. She has not been a fan of Hillary. Remember she supported Bernie in the primaries. So guess what Susan? Your vote just went to Trump. One less for Hillary is one more for the Donald.

by Donnamarie Wed 02 Nov 2016, 17:43

WWHS, if Trump wins the biggest concern will be the Supreme Court. If the Democrats don't win a majority in the Senate Trump and the conservative right-wing will try to appoint a far right judge who will at the very least attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.

If Trump wins all the grunt work will be done by his hand picked posse, including Pence. Trump isn't intelligent or articulate enough to tackle U.S. or foreign policy. He will take the spotlight but doubt he will roll of his sleeves to do the serious work.

If Trump wins our legislative system will continue to be dysfunctional.

If Trump wins watch for a mass exodus of Americans (sadly only those who could afford it) fleeing to Canada, New Zealand, wherever.

If Clinton wins she will have a hell of a time working with the conservative Republicans in Congress. She has a knack for working across party lines but the Republicans have already declared that they will start investigating her on her first day in office. She will most likely come up against an obstinate House of Representatives who will continue to block anything that might have her name on it ... and Obamacare. They can't stand her.

It's going to be ugly whoever wins. With Clinton we will be safer. And if the Democrats take back the Senate we may get some legislation passed. At least we won't have to worry about the Donald getting insulted by some foreign leader and sending our threatening tweets at 3 am.

by ladybugcngc Wed 02 Nov 2016, 19:10

Donnamarie - Have you watched the United States Supreme Court over the last 16 years; justice appointments, cases before the court, and decisions?

by party animal - not! Wed 02 Nov 2016, 20:02

I am going to miss this guy.

Here he is today on the subject of tacos.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeWCn_fUctA

by annemarie Wed 02 Nov 2016, 20:29

Pan I will miss him as well I feel he tried and did his best one person can only do so much.

by Donnamarie Wed 02 Nov 2016, 20:36

party animal - not! wrote:I am going to miss this guy.

Here he is today on the subject of tacos.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeWCn_fUctA

Yes PAN. Me too:(.

Firing them up with taco talk. Love it.

ladybug, I really don't follow the Supreme Court other than reading news articles about certain decisions. I did read 'My Beloved World' by Sonia Sotomayor which was a terrific book. She's a remarkable woman. Very Happy

by ladybugcngc Wed 02 Nov 2016, 20:40

Donnamarie: "ladybug, I really don't follow the Supreme Court other than reading news articles about certain decisions. I did read 'My Beloved World' by Sonia Sotomayor which was a terrific book. She's a remarkable woman. The Serious Side - Page 11 Icon_biggrin

"

ladybug: It shows.

by ladybugcngc Wed 02 Nov 2016, 20:59

party animal - not! wrote:I am going to miss this guy.

Here he is today on the subject of tacos.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeWCn_fUctA

80 days left. He is out of here.

by Donnamarie Wed 02 Nov 2016, 21:07

ladybugcngc wrote:Donnamarie: "ladybug, I really don't follow the Supreme Court other than reading news articles about certain decisions. I did read 'My Beloved World' by Sonia Sotomayor which was a terrific book. She's a remarkable woman. "

ladybug: It shows.

What do you mean exactly ladybug?

by LizzyNY Wed 02 Nov 2016, 21:34

ladybugcngc wrote:Donnamarie: "ladybug, I really don't follow the Supreme Court other than reading news articles about certain decisions. I did read 'My Beloved World' by Sonia Sotomayor which was a terrific book. She's a remarkable woman. "

ladybug: It shows.

Was that really necessary?

by ladybugcngc Wed 02 Nov 2016, 22:26

Donnemarie: "if Trump wins the biggest concern will be the Supreme Court. If the Democrats don't win a majority in the Senate Trump and the conservative right-wing will try to appoint a far right judge who will at the very least attempt to overturn Roe v Wade."

Ladybug: In 2000 and 2004 Bush ran under a pro-life platform. During those two terms the Court shifted to a 5-4 Republican conservative majority. Mid-term election 2006 the Senate went back to a Republican majority.

From 2006 – 2008 there was a Conservative Republican Executive Branch, Republican conservative Senate, and a Republican conservative Supreme Court. NOT been 1 pro-life/Roe v Wade court was case presented to the Republican Conservative Supreme Court. That Republican conservative court was in place until Justice Scalia’s seat was vacated this year; over the last 14 years not 1 Roe v. Wade case was presented to this court.

Roe v. Wade and other social issues are fed through the media to play up emotions.   The cost of living (housing, food, utilities insurance, even healthcare in the last year), has jump 100% - 200% over the last 8 years. These are things that effect all us.   Because Corporate Business control these areas and own news platforms those concerns are not in the forefront of the media.

That’s why I'm holding to a write in Gov. Huckabee miracle. He is qualified, he has great economic ideas, he is NOT connected to corp. business, and I think he will act in the best interest of United States and abroad.

Given the history, of a Conservative Republican majority U.S. Supreme (over the last 14 years) Roe v. Wade, has not been a concern or priority.

by ladybugcngc Wed 02 Nov 2016, 22:33

LizzyNY wrote:
ladybugcngc wrote:Donnamarie: "ladybug, I really don't follow the Supreme Court other than reading news articles about certain decisions. I did read 'My Beloved World' by Sonia Sotomayor which was a terrific book. She's a remarkable woman. "

ladybug: It shows.
Was that really necessary?

No, I had the option of saying nothing.

by fava Wed 02 Nov 2016, 22:33

ladybugcngc wrote:Donnamarie: "ladybug, I really don't follow the Supreme Court other than reading news articles about certain decisions. I did read 'My Beloved World' by Sonia Sotomayor which was a terrific book. She's a remarkable woman. "

ladybug: It shows.

Do non- Americas know a lot (or anything really) about the high courts of other countries?

by ladybugcngc Wed 02 Nov 2016, 22:40

Fava - Who is your question directed to?

by fava Wed 02 Nov 2016, 23:33

You seemed to imply another poster was ignorant in terms of the supreme court. Maybe that was not your intention. I was questioning why citizens of other countries would have much knowledge of the US Supreme Court. Most American would have little or not knowledge of the decisions of high courts in England, Italy, Australia, etc.

by LizzyNY Thu 03 Nov 2016, 01:25

ladybug - Most people don't have the time to follow all the doings of the Supreme Court or any other branch of the government except for major issues that they feel concern them personally. If you do have the time, good for you. Perhaps it will give you greater insight into the workings of the Constitution and the realization that it needs to be applied impartially to us all.

The reason social issues haven't been addressed has less to do with your corporate conspiracy and more to do with a Republican Congress that refused to govern because they were too busy spiting the President and screwing over the citizens of this country all in the name of conservative party politics. They are a disgrace.

By the way - If you had the option to say something nasty or nothing at all, nothing might have been a better choice.

by Donnamarie Thu 03 Nov 2016, 01:30

ladybug, abortion rights are a very important issue to women in this country. During a Trump presidency there could be 2-3 openings in the high court. If the make-up of the Supreme Court leans conservative then the constitutional right to abortion could be in question. There are a number of states that have already attempted to impede the rights of women to get abortions. Actually overturning Roe v Wade may not be realistically accomplished but states encroaching on the law happens often. Recently a Texas case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. A more conservative court may rule in favor of curbing those rights.

Both Trump and Pence have stated they will appoint justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Their promise may not be realistic but their intent is enough to fear a Trump presidency .... at least for the many women in our country who support abortions rights.

by party animal - not! Thu 03 Nov 2016, 02:35

Have to say that the abortion laws in the US have always puzzled me. Are they different from state to state or is there National legislation on this?

Here in the UK any woman can have an abortion up to 24 weeks if necessary and even later if there is a threat to the woman's life or complications.

And we're very lucky to have the National Health Service which is free at the point of need for everybody

by Fingersandtoes Thu 03 Nov 2016, 05:25

What worries me, even if Clinton is elected, is that well known and respected politicians like McCain have already said, that they'll (the GOP) fight against all judges Clinton will appoint. This even before she has won, and before she has even mentioned any names of judges, she'd appoint. They'll oppose anything Clinton will try to achieve, and this will be horrible for the US. Obamacare isn't perfect, but instead of working to fix it, they want to destroy it, just because it has Obama's name on it.

IMO this election has brought social issues to the front, because TrumpPence have so many alarming principles and plans at work. Pence is horrible, simply put.

This election is a fight of egos, and it's looking really ugly.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 06:43

Roe v. Wade/abortion is a topic that lends itself to very strong opinions.

Fava - I was responding to Donnamarie. She made to comment about Trump, the conservative right and the Supreme Court. The actions of the 14 year seated 5-4 majority Republican conservative-right U.S. Supreme court did not match her concerns regarding Roe v. Wade.

Lizzy - I do understand I have been given the time to do research where others may not have the time. I'm sorry, I have no idea what social issues or corporate conspiracy your referring to. The cost of living has increased 100% to 200% over the last eight years under Democratic leadership; that is the truth not a conspiracy.

Lizzy I have to agree my tone was very strong in my first answer. If I offended you or anyone it was not my intent, I do apologize.

Donnamarie - The Conservative right used your last argument to get President Bush elected. In 14 years of a seated 5-4 majority Republican conservative-right, U.S. Supreme court there was NOT 1 case regarding Roe v. Wade brought before the conservative right wing appointed court. The Texas case you are referring to was only sent before the Supreme Court after Justice Scalia vacated the court making it a 3-3 split.

PAN - Roe v. Wade is national legislation that extends the right to abortion within certain time frames and circumstances. There are strong arguments on both sides.

Under the Obama Administration our health care system was place in the hand of big business under the affordable care act. Over the last year the cost of health care has risen 50-100 percent.

Fingers and toes - Obamacare is a slang term it is actually the Affordable Care Act. Under the Act our government tax dollars subsidize Corporate owned health care companies. Under this system, Corporate Health Care Companies decide how much physicians are paid and well as how much the consumer is charge. As I've stated health care cost has risen 50-100 percent over the last year. And those who live who live below the poverty line and/or have lower income are given sub-standard health care. The argument of blocking a nominee is fluff. The Senate will confirm someone. Neither Trump or Clinton have addressed 100 - 200 percent cost of living increase that has taken place over the last 8 years.

Fingers and toes - you can check out Gov. Mike Huckabee as a write in candidate. I still have hope in a miracle.

by annemarie Thu 03 Nov 2016, 08:53

People who live below the poverty line or have lower income have always had bad healthcare. Hundreds of people have died waiting to see a doctor in emergency rooms. Some could not get any health care at all before the affordable care act.
Health care has never been until President Obama an important issue for the U.S.

by Way2Old4Dis Thu 03 Nov 2016, 11:23

Ladybugs: The cost of living has more doubled or tripled in 8 years? Do you want to stick by that?

Premium increases have nothing to do with the policies of the ACA. It is the insurance companies, who are not satisfied with their profit margins. They are still making money, after being forced to act responsibly and provide needed services, but they want to maintain the margins under pre-ACA policies. That's corporate greed, not government incompetence.

by LizzyNY Thu 03 Nov 2016, 12:36

Ladybug - Yes, cost of living has gone up. Cost of everything has gone up. In case you hadn't noticed, one of the reasons for this is that wages have gone up. I'm not saying that many Americans aren't having a difficult time of it, but I also think a lot of people have bought into the pop-culture idea that everyone should live like a celebrity. If you don't you're somehow deprived and given a license to resent anyone who is doing better than you are. Especially someone you think hasn't worked hard enough for what they've got.

Corporate America needs to be regulated and "encouraged" to bring middle class jobs back inside our borders. Demonizing the companies that could power our economic recovery only fuels class warfare and destabilizes our whole way of life.

Our government has almost always functioned through civility and compromise. Change came slowly, but it did come. The Republican party has shown no interest in maintaining a functioning government. They just want everything their own way or they'll take their ball and go home, like a spoiled five year old. Screw the people, screw the country, screw the Constitution. Their spoiled-brat selfishness has brought us Donald Trump. For that alone they should never be allowed to hold office again.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 13:06

annemarie wrote:People who live below the poverty line or have lower income have always had bad healthcare. Hundreds of people have died waiting to see a doctor in emergency rooms. Some could not get any health care at all before the affordable care act.
Health care has never been until President Obama an important issue for the U.S.

Health Care has been an issue for the 20-30 years. You are right under Obamacare NOTHING changed regarding those below the poverty line they still receive SUBSTANDARD health care. However the COST of health care for working people has risen 100 -200 percent over the last 8 years. That is because Corporate Business is controling our government.

by annemarie Thu 03 Nov 2016, 13:08

Thank you Lizzy and Way2.

by Way2Old4Dis Thu 03 Nov 2016, 13:39

Ladybug, if you're going to champion a position, at least get the math right. There is a huge difference between an absolute increase and a percentage increase. The cost of living has not doubled, and neither has the cost of health care. As for the latter, please also specify which costs you're referencing. Some premiums for some plans in the ACA - again, some on both counts - have gone up 25% over last year. But that is not "the cost of health care," nor is it 100-200%.

But now I get why you're so enamored of Huckabee.

by Way2Old4Dis Thu 03 Nov 2016, 13:40

annemarie wrote:Thank you Lizzy and Way2.

You're welcome.

by LizzyNY Thu 03 Nov 2016, 13:54

annemarie wrote:Thank you Lizzy and Way2

No problem - any time.

by Donnamarie Thu 03 Nov 2016, 14:04

Opponents of the ACA like to paint the negatives with a very broad brush. Like Way2 said some plans have seen an increase of up to 25%. Not all. Having an imperfect health care program in place is 100 times better than no health care program. The Republican Party never put forth a solid program of their own. There are upwards of 20 million people signed up for Obamacare. Twenty million who would have no health care today if the Republican Party had their way. The ACA has its problems. It needs fixes and improvements. It will take time and a cooperative Congress to make that happen.

Just as an added note about Mike Huckabee. I am not a fan of his very conservative views. But he totally disqualifies himself as a serious candidate when he skirts the birthism issue. He said a few years ago that Obama was raised in Kenya and that his world views leaned toward anti-colonist sentiment. Huckabee did later correct himself by admitting Obama was raised in Hawaii but he continued to accuse Obama of anti American exceptionalism views. And not too long ago he was wondering out loud why Obama hasn't shown us his college transcripts. All of this rhetoric aimed at insinuating that in some ways Obama isn't legitimate.
Huckabee's views, not to mention the birtherism accusations by Trump, are totally disqualifying IMO.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 14:31

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Ladybugs: The cost of living has more doubled or tripled in 8 years? Do you want to stick by that?

Premium increases have nothing to do with the policies of the ACA. It is the insurance companies, who are not satisfied with their profit margins. They are still making money, after being forced to act responsibly and provide needed services, but they want to maintain the margins under pre-ACA policies. That's corporate greed, not government incompetence.

My statement: "The cost of living (housing, food, utilities insurance, even healthcare in the last year), has jump 100% - 200% over the last 8 years". Yes I stand by this statement.

My statement: "Under the Act our government tax dollars subsidize Corporate owned health care companies. Under this system, Corporate Health Care Companies decide how much physicians are paid and well as how much the consumer is charge". I don’t see how we differ.
.
Insurance companies being forced to act responsibly under the ACA is debatable. You might want to check out unsafe practices allowed under the ACA in the use of ventilator machines and the harvesting of organ transplant as a result. I lived through it, only by the hand of the Heaven Father/Jesus did the person survive – in lay-mans terms - she is a medical miracle.

My Stand: In truth Congress regulates public policy regarding insurance companies across the board. Over the last 16 years those policies have bolstered corporate greed at the expense of “we the people”. Because political campaigns (both republican and democrat) are funded by corporate business political policy continues to favor corporate greed at our expense

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 14:52

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - Yes, cost of living has gone up. Cost of everything has gone up. In case you hadn't noticed, one of the reasons for this is that wages have gone up. I'm not saying that many Americans aren't having a difficult time of it, but I also think a lot of people have bought into the pop-culture idea that everyone should live like a celebrity. If you don't you're somehow deprived and given a license to resent anyone who is doing better than you are. Especially someone you think hasn't worked hard enough for what they've got.

Corporate America needs to be regulated and "encouraged" to bring middle class jobs back inside our borders. Demonizing the companies that could power our economic recovery only fuels class warfare and destabilizes our whole way of life.

Our government has almost always functioned through civility and compromise. Change came slowly, but it did come. The Republican party has shown no interest in maintaining a functioning government. They just want everything their own way or they'll take their ball and go home, like a spoiled five year old. Screw the people, screw the country, screw the Constitution. Their spoiled-brat selfishness has brought us Donald Trump. For that alone they should never be allowed to hold office again.

The problem in our government is both republican and democrat, they are both funded by corporate business. The truth is salaries have of the average worker has only increase 1-5 percent while the cost of living has increase 100-200 percent.

Raising the minimum wage: 1. will lend the excuse to Corporate business to continue the raise the cost of goods and services. 2. It will make it harder for small business to maintain their overhead.

Change that favor "we the people" will not come until Congress both republican and democratic look to the needs of "we the people" and not those who fund their campaigns.

The Republican Party have not supported Donald Trump. I am not a Donald Trump supporter. If he wins, it will be quite interesting.

Gov. Huckabee write - in miracle.

by annemarie Thu 03 Nov 2016, 15:51

Why exactly, do you think Huckabee will change things. Congress have already shown they will do what they want and if they don't want to work with the President they won't.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 16:19

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Ladybugs: The cost of living has more doubled or tripled in 8 years? Do you want to stick by that?

Premium increases have nothing to do with the policies of the ACA. It is the insurance companies, who are not satisfied with their profit margins. They are still making money, after being forced to act responsibly and provide needed services, but they want to maintain the margins under pre-ACA policies. That's corporate greed, not government incompetence.

To clarify I am referring to premiums when I’ve stated “health care cost”.

Way 2 are you a guy? I have stated my figures in percentages you have transposed them into absolutes – “double” “trirple”.

My statements:

“Under the Obama Administration our health care system was place in the hand of big business under the affordable care act. Over the last year the cost of health care has risen 50-100 percent.” In this case I’m referring to non-working people.

“However the COST of health care for working people has risen 100 -200 percent over the last 8 years.” In this case I’m referring to working people.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 16:36

annemarie wrote:Why exactly, do you think Huckabee will change things. Congress have already shown they will do what they want and if they don't want to work with the President they won't.

I support Gov. Huckabee because he is not funded by U. S. Oil/Corporate Business and in his economic platform, he has consistently worked to support the best interest regarding “we the people”.

A write in Gov. Huckabee win will show Congress, both the House and the Senate, they represent "we the people" and not Corporate Business. President Huckabee will have "we the people" to stand with him on issues that go before Congress. With that voting power "we the people" will look to Congress to ensure they are acting in our best interest and NOT the interest that bolsters corporate greed.

I still hold out hope in a miracle Gov. Huckabee write-in win.

by fava Thu 03 Nov 2016, 16:55

ladybugcngc wrote:

My statement: "Under the Act our government tax dollars subsidize Corporate owned health care companies. Under this system, Corporate Health Care Companies decide how much physicians are paid and well as how much the consumer is charge". I don’t see how we differ.

This is no different than it was before with Medicare and Medicaid.

7 states do not allow write-in candidates at all. Other states (35 of them) only count votes for someone that has registered as a write in candidate.

A write in winner would be miraculous.

by LizzyNY Thu 03 Nov 2016, 17:03

ladybugcngc wrote:

Way 2 are you a guy? I have stated my figures in percentages you have transposed them into absolutes – “double” “trirple”.

WTF????? What on earth does someone's gender have to do with them disagreeing with you?

I'm beginning to think you're the poster child for the old adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Either that, or you're delusional. Whichever, I'm going to try my best not to get involved with your arguments. I disagree with most of them and since you've already made up your mind, there's no point in further discussion.

by Way2Old4Dis Thu 03 Nov 2016, 17:39

Math is gender-neutral.

If, for instance, a $50 item increased 100% in price, it would then be $100. (50x100%=50; $50 added to the original cost of $50 is $100.) That is double.

That same $50 item increasing 200% would be $150, which is tripled. (50x200%=100; 50 + 100=150).

But, if the cost of living rises at, say, 2.5% one year, then at 5% the next, the rise has doubled. But not the cost of living.

See how that works?

If you want to convince me that the cost of living increases have risen at some rate percentage over the last eight years, I might be willing to listen. But telling me that the cost of living itself has doubled or tripled in that time is hogwash. They are two entirely different mathematical concepts.

And the fact that, in your mind, I must be a guy for pointing that out you puts you, in my mind, way over the line into sexist territory. We're done.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 19:21

Way 2 I have to apologize, my computer cut off about 8 different times when I was trying to type my response.

The short answer is yes I understand how the numbers work out. I am talking about the “cost of living” not the rate of inflation.

I’m defining the cost of living as what I paid for goods and services in 2008 compared to what I currently pay. Example I paid 3.00 for a pound of cat fish in 2008; I now pay 9.00 per pound (all factors equal, same: store, quality, geographical location). That is a 200% increase in price equal to triple what I paid in 2008. That is a true to life fact; an example of how I’m defining cost of living.

Your comment to my was: “the cost of living has more doubled or tripled in 8 years? Do you want to stick by that?”

My answer is yes I stick to my original comments.

The reason I asked if you were a guy was because in my experience men don’t listen to what I say, they hear what they want to hear. The truth is using my percentages or your absolute numbers the outcome is the same.

I don't understand your statement: But, if the cost of living rises at, say, 2.5% one year, then at 5% the next, the rise has doubled. But not the cost of living.

In this case the problem may be how the two of us are defining the “cost of living”.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 19:39

LizzyNY wrote:
ladybugcngc wrote:

Way 2 are you a guy? I have stated my figures in percentages you have transposed them into absolutes – “double” “trirple”.
WTF????? What on earth does someone's gender have to do with them disagreeing with you?

I'm beginning to think you're the poster child for the old adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Either that, or you're delusional. Whichever, I'm going to try my best not to get involved with your arguments. I disagree with most of them and since you've already made up your mind, there's no point in further discussion.

I asked Way 2 if he was guy because in my experience men don’t listen to what I say, they hear what they want to hear. The truth is using my percentages or his absolute numbers, the outcome is the same.

My effort to hope a Gov. Huckabee write-in win is possible may seem delusional to some.

I state what I understand to be truth. If I've stated facts here,that are not true, let me know and I will stand corrected.

Views on different sides of social concerns can lend itself to intense debate. I certainly extend to you my hand to agree to disagree.

by fava Thu 03 Nov 2016, 19:50

Ladybug,
So your mortgage or rent doubled or tripled? Your water and electricity cost doubled? The cost of transportation tripled? The cost of a gallon of gas doubled or tripled? Your dentist charges twice as much for a cleaning? The cost of a dozen eggs tripled? You spend twice as much at the grocery store for the same basket of items? You cannot take one item or a few items and call that the "cost of living." Yes many items go up--often it depends on the effect of other things on certain commodities that are outside government control. For example, honey prices due to the decline of honey bees.

If the cost of living had truly doubled the last 8 years, my husband and I would be in bankruptcy court right now. We were living only on 50% of our income 8 years ago.

by Way2Old4Dis Thu 03 Nov 2016, 19:54

I define "cost of living" according to the definition used by economists and other experts who study and teach such things.

The "cost of living" includes a conglomerate of basic living expenses that portray the amount of money it takes to maintain a certain level of day-to-day quality of life. Your level of living, I would guess, is not determined by the price of catfish.

Unless you are now paying double to triple for housing, food (all food), healthcare, and taxes (all of those, not any one and not a subset of one), and certain other expenses, then your cost of living has not doubled or tripled. It's that simple.

And if it has doubled or tripled for you, that does not make it a national phenomenon and certainly has nothing to do with the last 8 years of the Obama administration.

by ladybugcngc Thu 03 Nov 2016, 20:14

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I define "cost of living" according to the definition used by economists and other experts who study and teach such things.

The "cost of living" includes a conglomerate of basic living expenses that portray the amount of money it takes to maintain a certain level of day-to-day quality of life. Your level of living, I would guess, is not determined by the price of catfish.

Unless you are now paying double to triple for housing, food (all food), healthcare, and taxes (all of those, not any one and not a subset of one), and certain other expenses, then your cost of living has not doubled or tripled. It's that simple.

And if it has doubled or tripled for you, that does not make it a national phenomenon and certainly has nothing to do with the last 8 years of the Obama administration.

You are right I do not determine my level of living by the price of catfish, it was used simply as an example.

Given your definition I do think we share the same understanding of the "cost of living".

The truth is I am paying double and triple for goods and services compared to 8 years ago. Housing has at least double over the last 8 years. I'm a numbers person, data can be skewed, to fit whatever facts trying to be proven. I can find the data that proves my case. You may be able to find data that disproves my case. I will do the research.

In my experience it is a national phenomenon. I agree it has nothing to do with the Obama administration; the phenomenon is connected U.S. Oil/Corporate Business running the Obama administration.

by Sponsored content