bearister;842677247 said:

---

I wouldn't bet on that. Some opine it is the very reason he won't produce his tax returns....because when it comes to charity he throws nickels around like manhole covers.

---

The reality is that you have no idea. Here's what is true- Your progressive friends love to spend everybody else's money but their own. Republican politicians donate a great deal more to charities as opposed to their democrat brethren. Fact!

Ncsf;842677250 said:

---

The reality is that you have no idea. Here's what is true- Your progressive friends love to spend everybody else's money but their own. Republican politicians donate a great deal more to charities as opposed to their democrat brethren. Fact!

---

Trump's "charity giving": "Trump's campaign compiled a list of his contributions 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages. But, in that massive list, one thing was missing.
Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump's own money."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-portrait-of-trump-the-donor-free-rounds-of-golf-but-no-personal-cash/2016/04/10/373b9b92-fb40-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html


Cruz's "charity giving": "Evangelicals and political opponents want to know why Cruz gave less than 1% of his income to charity between 2006 and 2010."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/ted-cruz-faces-questions-about-his-tithing-history


Kasich's "charity giving": "In 2008, Kasich reported nearly $1.4 million in overall income. Based on the biblical principle of tithingcontributing at least 10 percent of one's income to faith-based causesKasich should have donated $140,000 or more to charitable or faith-based causes. However, his tax returns show that his reported charitable contributions totaled $27,326, less than 2 percent of his total income that year, and far less than the 10 percent tithe that is generally expected of believers."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/14/when-it-comes-to-charity-john-kasich-doesnt-practice-what-he-preaches/


Rubio "made about $66,000 in charitable contributions over six years, which his campaign said went to a community church."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/marco-rubio-tax-returns-f_n_585057.html





Source for the following: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646425/Which-candidate-gives-the-most-to-charity.html?pg=all

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton's giving rate: 10.8%
Bernie Sanders: 5%

Jeb Bush: 3.7%
Chris Chrisite: 2.9%
Carly Fiorina: 13.4%
Ted Cruz: 0.9%
Rick Santorum: 1.8%

---

Clinton Foundation? Ha ha ha ha ha!

The Clintons have indeed been very generous in the past, like the time they're made a $850,000 donation to Paula Jones.

Cal88;842677264 said:

---

The Clintons have indeed been very generous in the past, like the time they're made a $850,000 donation to Paula Jones.

---

Not to mention Bill's donation to Monica Lewinsky.

okaydo;842677266 said:

---

Not to mention Bill's donation to Monica Lewinsky.

---

Clinton's dick is a major funder of the sexual harassment movement.

Ncsf;842677250 said:

---

The reality is that you have no idea. Here's what is true- Your progressive friends love to spend everybody else's money but their own. Republican politicians donate a great deal more to charities as opposed to their democrat brethren. Fact!

---

Tithing so you can get to heaven isn't charity.

Ncsf;842677248 said:

---

You don't get that wealthy by being an idiot but all you will be able to afford is burritos if you get the liar or socialist elected.

---

Ah, the old Republican refrain whenever a Democrat is about to win. Never mind that the economy is almost always better under Democratic presidents.

sycasey;842677305 said:

---

Ah, the old Republican refrain whenever a Democrat is about to win. Never mind that the economy is almost always better under Democratic presidents.

---

Some people hate kenyan socialists so much, that they are still convinced that George Bush was a better prez.

Sonofoski;842676980 said:

---

Do you think this disclosure would make any difference to those who support Hillary. I doubt it, she could rob a bank, abuse a minor, kill someone and she would still get 47% of the vote.

As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman.

When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."

---

The funny thing about this post - highlighting a disproven Hillary attack - is that the reality is that Hillary haters will believe and get conned into ANYTHING that tries to paint Hillary in a bad light. They seem so concerned about lies, but they eat up lies about Hillary like some people eat up candy treats.

Ncsf;842677248 said:

---

You don't get that wealthy by being an idiot but all you will be able to afford is burritos if you get the liar or socialist elected.

---

If I were to believe this line of thinking I would have to reject everything I have observed in my life. I wonder how you do it.

Reagan's economy was built off exploding the deficit and was thus an unsustainable model. Reagan was the biggest spending President between WWII and the Great Recession - look it up. He inherited a near balanced budget from his democratic predecessor. GHWB's economy and Presidency ended in recession. GWB inherited a budget surplus which he managed to destroy along with the economy.

Clinton and Obama improved our GDP, deficit, and employment positions vs. what they inherited from their Republican predecessors.

Charts like this, built on Facts, don't impress the un- and under-educated wingnuts who can barely stand short-term, temporary work.
Recall that Cruzer read Seuss during his "filibuster", and the tea potty dudes liked the pictures even though Seuss' words were too challenging. That this many jobs have been created is amazing given the Repugs ignoring and ignorance about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

burritos;842677313 said:

---

Some people hate kenyan socialists so much, that they are still convinced that George Bush was a better prez.

---

SonOfCalVa;842677364 said:

---

Charts like this, built on Facts, don't impress the un- and under-educated wingnuts who can barely stand short-term, temporary work.
Recall that Cruzer read Seuss during his "filibuster", and the tea potty dudes liked the pictures even though Seuss' words were too challenging. That this many jobs have been created is amazing given the Repugs ignoring and ignorance about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

---

Actually what they will argue is that this happened because of the Republican Congress controlling the purse strings. Which actually seems laughable, given the current Congress' do-nothing record, but mark my words, soon that will be the reply.

Ncsf;842677248 said:

---

You don't get that wealthy by being an idiot but all you will be able to afford is burritos if you get the liar or socialist elected.

---

Many of the 'wealthy' lead to the question: If they're so rich, why aren't they smart? hmmmm
Trump got his 'start' with a million dollar spoon from Daddy, and needed 'loans' from Daddy to bail him out when he demonstrated the business sense of an idiot. Pity those fools who lost so much money on Trump's schemes while he walked away ... crafty lawyers and a lack of due diligence saved him.
Idiot - gawd, listen to Trump speak, suppressing the vomit impulse; he's an idiot, lusting not so secretly for his daughter.

sycasey;842677365 said:

---

Actually what they will argue is that this happened because of the Republican Congress controlling the purse strings. Which actually seems laughable, given the current Congress' do-nothing record, but mark my words, soon that will be the reply.

---

Of course, well said, but their 'arguments' will be based on unexamined, unsupported 'talking points' proved by their talk 'jocks'.

One source of pleasure is living among many of them now and 'examining' their 'arguments'.
Reagan is a never ending source of fun when his name is mentioned, and I'll bring up Rummy Raygun's name if they don't. It's fun examining his role as Gov in creating Homeless People while 'balancing' the CA budget, by closing hospitals and throwing the people and expense unexpectedly on cities and counties. Very cute, very inhumane ... from a moral cretin.

burritos;842677313 said:

---

Some people hate kenyan socialists so much, that they are still convinced that George Bush was a better prez.

---

What is the Labor participation rate? How many are part-time jobs? How many are low paying service "fast food" jobs?

Come on, you're better than that...lies, damn lies and statistics.

NVGolfingBear;842677375 said:

---

What is the Labor participation rate? How many are part-time jobs? How many are low paying service "fast food" jobs?

Come on, you're better than that...lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Currently about 18% of jobs are part time. That is down from 20% in 2010, which is before Obamacare and is about the time the Obama jobs boom began. This is still worse than the 17% pre-recession level.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment

The labor force participation rate is 63%. Down from its 2001 peak of 67% (it was trending down before the Great Recession and Obama) and up from the 60% it was in the mid-1960s. Part of the decrease is because of baby-boomers retiring, but participation is down for working age people as well. I think it involves low pay making a family having a 2nd job not worthwhile.

Low pay is an ongoing problem going back to the late 1970s. Resolving that issue is the real challenge of our time.

All in all, I think the same people trying to downplay the Obama jobs boom would be calling it the Mitt Miracle if the GOP had won the 2012 election and the same jobs story unfolded.

dajo9;842677407 said:

---

Currently about 18% of jobs are part time. That is down from 20% in 2010, which is before Obamacare and is about the time the Obama jobs boom began. This is still worse than the 17% pre-recession level.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment

The labor force participation rate is 63%. Down from its 2001 peak of 67% (it was trending down before the Great Recession and Obama) and up from the 60% it was in the mid-1960s. Part of the decrease is because of baby-boomers retiring, but participation is down for working age people as well. I think it involves low pay making a family having a 2nd job not worthwhile.

Low pay is an ongoing problem going back to the late 1970s. Resolving that issue is the real challenge of our time.

[SIZE=3]All in all, I think the same people trying to downplay the Obama jobs boom would be calling it the Mitt Miracle if the GOP had won the 2012 election and the same jobs story unfolded.[/SIZE]

---

Emphasis deserved and added ... well done, Dajo

SonOfCalVa;842677432 said:

---

Emphasis deserved and added ... well done, Dajo

---

My point is simply that one cannot quote a single number and call it a major success, no matter what your political persuasion. It's obviously much more complex. If all new jobs created in the last 64 months were service, entry-level, 'fast food' type jobs, the median income levels would have fallen more. That would not be a healthy economy IMO. It's easy to be simplistic on an internet board but it far from a simplistic issue.

If Obama said the sky was blue, republicans would say it was azure. Or say that Obama gets no credit for it being blue, that global warming is a myth and that to all a progressive plot to steal their moneys. Trump could provide evidence that he will be able to get Mexico to pay for a wall, that it will be great and that everyone will love him, but the democrats would continue to claim that he's making everything up and is in way over his head.

No one changes their mind no matter what data you have.

The irony of the inclusion of political discussion on a sports discussion board is that they have more in common than most people would like to admit. It's more about passion than objective analysis and that will never change.

NVGolfingBear;842677375 said:

---

What is the Labor participation rate? How many are part-time jobs? How many are low paying service "fast food" jobs?

Come on, you're better than that...lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

You're right. All those metrics were better under Bush.

Ncsf;842677248 said:

---

You don't get that wealthy by being an idiot but all you will be able to afford is burritos if you get the liar or socialist elected.

---

Yeah, his actions have made him $10 billion less rich than had he just indexed.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

Quote:

---

Forbes reports Donald Trump is worth $4.1 billion; Trump says $10 billion. Either way, he'd be worth a lot more if he simply retired 30 years ago and put his money in an unmanaged stock fund.

---

burritos;842677505 said:

---

You're right. All those metrics were better under Bush.

---

Come on burritos, you know that's not what I'm saying but if that's how you want to spin it, well okay. That doesn't help the discussion much, but I guess that's my mistake for trying to have one.

NVGolfingBear;842677508 said:

---

Come on burritos, you know that's not what I'm saying but if that's how you want to spin it, well okay. That doesn't help the discussion much, but I guess that's my mistake for trying to have one.

---

Is that "spin" though? The start of this thread about economic performance comes from my assertion that the economy is typically "better" under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. That assertion of mine was in response to a claim that electing a liberal Democrat would destroy the economy (an claim that I find dubious). So the comparison of Obama to Bush is valid, given the grounds.

If you want to discuss how there may be other indicators that make the economic numbers not as good as they seem, then that's fine, but not what the argument was originally about. And if you do make that argument it would be useful to have numbers across multiple administrations, if you don't want it to come off as a partisan criticism.

burritos;842677507 said:

---

Yeah, his actions have made him $10 billion less rich than had he just indexed.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

---

$3Bn (or more) is his "brand" ... how much for "good will" ... no wonder he won't publish his balance sheet.

ncsf;842677250 said:

---

the reality is that you have no idea. Here's what is true- your progressive friends love to spend everybody else's money but their own. Republican politicians donate a great deal more to charities as opposed to their democrat brethren. Fact!

---

no way that's true!!!! No way my friend>

Unit2Sucks;842677475 said:

---

If Obama said the sky was blue, republicans would say it was azure. Or say that Obama gets no credit for it being blue, that global warming is a myth and that to all a progressive plot to steal their moneys. Trump could provide evidence that he will be able to get Mexico to pay for a wall, that it will be great and that everyone will love him, but the democrats would continue to claim that he's making everything up and is in way over his head.

No one changes their mind no matter what data you have.

The irony of the inclusion of political discussion on a sports discussion board is that they have more in common than most people would like to admit. It's more about passion than objective analysis and that will never change.

---

I don't think that's true. People do change their minds. In fact, not too long ago California was a red state. I have many relatives in California who used to be Republicans and are now Democrats.

NVGolfingBear;842677508 said:

---

Come on burritos, you know that's not what I'm saying but if that's how you want to spin it, well okay. That doesn't help the discussion much, but I guess that's my mistake for trying to have one.

---

What is the discussion you want. Obama is a sh!tty president and under Mitt Romney with the teabagging congress in tow, we'd be in utopia? That better?

burritos;842677587 said:

---

What is the discussion you want. Obama is a sh!tty president and under Mitt Romney with the teabagging congress in tow, we'd be in utopia? That better?

---

He is NOT the President. He was born in Kenya.

I definitely know people like that and acknowledge some do exist although we are talking about a multi-year change, not a "read a comment by someone on a message board" sort of thing. My dad arguably was one of those California voters but in reality he pretty much stayed the same, it's the parties that changed. The other reason California has swung is due to demographic changes (people dying off and being replaced by democrats through birth or immigration), not just voters changing sides. I haven't looked this up but would be interested to see.

The political discourse on this forum generally is of the speaking to the choir sort where half the people nod their heads and the other half shake their heads in disgust.

dajo9;842677577 said:

---

I don't think that's true. People do change their minds. In fact, not too long ago California was a red state. I have many relatives in California who used to be Republicans and are now Democrats.

---

Unit2Sucks;842677629 said:

---

I definitely know people like that and acknowledge some do exist although we are talking about a multi-year change, not a "read a comment by someone on a message board" sort of thing.

---

Sure, but what happens over those multiple years? A lot of little things combine to convince a person to start voting differently. Comments on message boards could be some of those little things.

That's why I always view my comments on the issue as just putting something out there into the general conversation. I am under no illusions that I am going to convince that one person I'm arguing against (I mean, once in a blue moon it happens, but usually not), but still there is value in providing your own counter-narrative to a narrative you see as faulty. Someone who is on the fence may read both and decide your argument is better.