White House has settled in

240,750 Views | 4296 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Professor Turgeson Bear
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Does want to offend his buddies in his base.

Today when he was asked about the incident, the operative words in his word salad response was "It's sad." Since he is dumb as a turnip, he almost always "tells it like it is in his twisted mind." He undoubtedly thinks it is "sad" because one of his supporters crossed the line or he is sad he got caught.
Somehow I doubt the word "sad" would have found its way into his response had the terrorist wannabe been a Leftie or a Muslim plotting to off members of the Republican leadership.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Another Bear said:

Does want to offend his buddies in his base.

Today when he was asked about the incident, the operative words in his word salad response was "It's sad." Since he is dumb as a turnip, he almost always "tells it like it is in his twisted mind." He undoubtedly thinks it is "sad" because one of his supporters crossed the line or he is sad he got caught.
Somehow I doubt the word "sad" would have found its way into his response had the terrorist wannabe been a Leftie or a Muslim plotting to off members of the Republican leadership.
Trump called his old friend, Robert Kraft and his prostitution sting, "very sad". My guess is he'll say his son's indictment is very, very sad.
Peanut Gallery Consultant
offshorebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/21/why-wont-the-media-discuss-trumps-mental-instability/

"Donald has always been deeply mentally ill. He literally believes that he should be running not just the U.S. but the whole world, that the rest of us are all fools and idiots, and that he is genetically superior." - Trump's biographer
offshorebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Clicky
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The distinction being Big Foot is smarter, more graceful, and has bigger hands and appendages.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1 big thing: Sexual abuse on our watch
"Thousands of unaccompanied minors (UACs) were allegedly sexually abused in U.S. custody, a problem that predates President Trump but which reached new heights in 2018.

Earlier today: House Democrat Ted Deutch released government reports showing thousands of reports of sexual abuse, Axios' Caitlin Owens, Stef Kight and Harry Stevens report.
Allegations against staff members included everything from rumors of relationships with UACs to showing pornographic videos to minors to forcibly touching minors' genitals.
"Together, these documents detail an environment of systemic sexual assaults by staff on unaccompanied children," Deutch said at a House hearing.


A sampling of the allegations, flagged by Stef:

Twice in 2014, a youth care worker at a nonprofit migrant child shelter reportedly offered one of the children in their care a pair of shoes in exchange for fondling the minor's genitals. The case was not investigated.
There were multiple allegations of pornographic images being shown to minors, forced kissing and groping of private areas.
Many reports were of inappropriate relationships between caretakers and minors, including one instance where the mother of the UAC reported that her son had been messaging a worker over social media and text." Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Peanut Gallery Consultant
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cinematic juxtaposition.

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Peanut Gallery Consultant
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The shenanigans behind Jerry the Kush's security clearance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What else is new? A day after Trump speaks truthfully from his dark heart (see Helsinki), he is told that he should try better not to come across as a traitor and devout lover of autocrats.

......

NEW: Trump on Otto Warmbier: "I never like being misinterpreted, but especially when it comes to Otto Warmbier and his great family...Of course I hold North Korea responsible...for Otto's mistreatment and death."
https://t.co/o9GWgaLNeL



"I love Otto and think of him often!" Stop lying evil man.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:


AOC is wrong in one sense.
Management (ownership) requires a profit. Otherwise, nobody would be indented to start a business and hire anyone else.
She says "far less". Well, there are plenty of businesses that fail. More would fail as workers' shares of profit is mandated to increase. That's not good for the economy.

Do we have a wealth gap?
Absolutely. But she needs to be accurate with her rhetoric.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


He saved Otto?
I thought he was dead.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:


Dude. Do you still have sex with your wife?
I wouldn't give her the satisfaction.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The title of this thread is that the "White House has settled in."

Has anyone else noticed that trump appears to be speaking much more calmly the past couple weeks?
He doesn't seem panicked anymore.
It makes me think that he has increased confidence that everything is going his way.

Maybe he knows that the mueller report is gonna go nowhere. Barr in place, Sessions gone and ROsenstein leaving.
Maybe he knows that the SC will never rule against him. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and 3 other clowns.
Maybe he is just tired, or getting bored.

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AOC's not talking about private ownership.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

AOC's not talking about private ownership.
Please edifying me.
Thank you.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

The title of this thread is that the "White House has settled in."

Has anyone else noticed that trump appears to be speaking much more calmly the past couple weeks?
He doesn't seem panicked anymore.
It makes me think that he has increased confidence that everything is going his way.




That's been worrying me too. Just when things seem worse, he is more Zen and unabashedly CPAC nutso. Does give the impression that he thinks he is safe.

How the public let's him off the hook without his tax returns and under oath testimony is astounding. Even if you adore the man, think he is persecuted, and that all of these investigations are unjustified political petty fishing expeditions, there is no justification for not wanting his tax returns and sworn testimony. In fact, you should want it more to prove his innocence.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The national embarrassment must end.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Making of the Fox News White House


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The heat has been turned up...and Dotard L'Orange has double down. Up from 11 lies, mis-truths per day to...

Trump Is Lying 22 Times Per Day
Peanut Gallery Consultant
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're all sad about the lives impacted by tornadoes in Alabama. The president has quickly and vociferously jumped out to convey his full and unqualified support for those affected. It is comforting to know that the president does not respond differently to widespread devastation based on whether he won that state in the 2016 election because that would be just plain evil.



B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

The Making of the Fox News White House


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house
Yup, Roger Ailes, former and now dead Fox CEO...gave Trump the debate questions before hand.

Crimes against democracy should be prosecuted to the max.

Peanut Gallery Consultant
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

The national embarrassment must end.




I'm pretty sure tRump violated the Rules and Protocal relating to the respect to be given to the Stars and Stripes. I'm sure getting orange spray tan, hair dye and burger grease on the Flag is a no no.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

The Making of the Fox News White House


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house
In a few years that have been the nadir of our democracy, this article still manages to find new lows. Why am I not surprised that candidates for president are getting fed questions ahead of time?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

Why am I not surprised that candidates for president are getting fed questions ahead of time?


Because it has been known for years that Donna Brazil's fed Hillary Clinton questions ahead of time? At least now we know for sure that the outrage from conservatives was faux.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is a big deal. The fact that Fox is the White House's propaganda arm is much more problematic.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear tRump Lite:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/DonaldTrumpJrLetter.pdf

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/DonaldJTrumpRevocableTrustA.pdf



https://www.axios.com/house-judiciary-trump-abuse-investigation-7360034b-ac78-4e4b-b525-10502dd8614c.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Another Bear said:


AOC is wrong in one sense.
Management (ownership) requires a profit. Otherwise, nobody would be indented to start a business and hire anyone else.
She says "far less". Well, there are plenty of businesses that fail. More would fail as workers' shares of profit is mandated to increase. That's not good for the economy.

Do we have a wealth gap?
Absolutely. But she needs to be accurate with her rhetoric.


I disagree with AOC's use of the word "right" in this context but I also disagree with your take on the economic impact.

More companies would succeed if their customers had more spending money due to higher minimum wages.
An old white dude
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Another Bear said:


AOC is wrong in one sense.
Management (ownership) requires a profit. Otherwise, nobody would be indented to start a business and hire anyone else.
She says "far less". Well, there are plenty of businesses that fail. More would fail as workers' shares of profit is mandated to increase. That's not good for the economy.

Do we have a wealth gap?
Absolutely. But she needs to be accurate with her rhetoric.


I disagree with AOC's use of the word "right" in this context but I also disagree with your take on the economic impact.

More companies would succeed if their customers had more spending money due to higher minimum wages.
Mandating minimum wages would increase cost to customers.
Mandating minimum wages makes us less competitive on the world stage where it comes to manufacturing products that compete with those made abroad.
Mandating minimum wages is a market distortion, which adds to inefficiency.
Not good.

If you want to alter the wealth gap, tax the profits. Increase taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the poor. Sure, taxes are another form of market distortion, but you keep prices for all (including the poor and foreigners so as to increase sales) low in an effort to increase the chances for profits.

We live in a time where taxes across the board are pretty much at historical lows. And yet, the wealthy and the conservative networks repeat arguments that poor people aren't paying their fair share. Do they realize?



2018 top marginal tax rates:
Income:
37%, Over $500,000

Dividends: ordinary dividends taxes at income rate. Qualified dividends taxed at cap gains rate.

Capital Gains:
20%
Over $425,800
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Another Bear said:


AOC is wrong in one sense.
Management (ownership) requires a profit. Otherwise, nobody would be indented to start a business and hire anyone else.
She says "far less". Well, there are plenty of businesses that fail. More would fail as workers' shares of profit is mandated to increase. That's not good for the economy.

Do we have a wealth gap?
Absolutely. But she needs to be accurate with her rhetoric.


I disagree with AOC's use of the word "right" in this context but I also disagree with your take on the economic impact.

More companies would succeed if their customers had more spending money due to higher minimum wages.
Mandating minimum wages would increase cost to customers.
Mandating minimum wages makes us less competitive on the world stage where it comes to manufacturing products that compete with those made abroad.
Mandating minimum wages is a market distortion, which adds to inefficiency.
Not good.

If you want to alter the wealth gap, tax the profits. Increase taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the poor. Sure, taxes are another form of market distortion, but you keep prices for all (including the poor and foreigners so as to increase sales) low in an effort to increase the chances for profits.

We live in a time where taxes across the board are pretty much at historical lows. And yet, the wealthy and the conservative networks repeat arguments that poor people aren't paying their fair share. Do they realize?


Let's take these statements one at a time:

"Mandating minimum wages would increase cost to customers"
This is more complicated and is one of the most common misunderstandings about economics. Prices for a product are driven by supply and demand, not by cost inputs. A cost inputs affect on supply (and price) is directly correlated to the competitiveness of the industry. Therefore, unless you are a wheat farmer or selling some other easily produced commodity, an increase in prices is most likely to be the result of higher demand generated from customers having more money. In other words, this is most likely true only if I am right.

"Mandating minimum wages makes us less competitive on the world stage where it comes to manufacturing products that compete with those made abroad"
Minimum wages mostly affect retail in which the employee is at the final point of sale with the customer. It is not an international competition.

"Mandating minimum wages is a market distortion, which adds to inefficiency"
This sounds good but is just a combination of words with no meaning. Wealth inequality is a product of efficiency. Underpaying your employees is efficiency from a microeconomics standpoint. Problem is, it creates macroeconomic inefficiencies.

I agree with your take on raising taxes, but we need to do more to reward work in America if we want people working.
An old white dude
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Let's take these statements one at a time:

1.
"Mandating minimum wages would increase cost to customers"
This is more complicated and is one of the most common misunderstandings about economics. Prices for a product are driven by supply and demand, not by cost inputs. A cost inputs affect on supply (and price) is directly correlated to the competitiveness of the industry. Therefore, unless you are a wheat farmer or selling some other easily produced commodity, an increase in prices is most likely to be the result of higher demand generated from customers having more money. In other words, this is most likely true only if I am right.

2.
"Mandating minimum wages makes us less competitive on the world stage where it comes to manufacturing products that compete with those made abroad"
Minimum wages mostly affect retail in which the employee is at the final point of sale with the customer. It is not an international competition.

3.
"Mandating minimum wages is a market distortion, which adds to inefficiency"
This sounds good but is just a combination of words with no meaning. Wealth inequality is a product of efficiency. Underpaying your employees is efficiency from a microeconomics standpoint. Problem is, it creates macroeconomic inefficiencies.

4.
I agree with your take on raising taxes, but we need to do more to reward work in America if we want people working.

1. Not sure what the heck you are referring to. Supply is affected by cost of all units of production to bring final product to market (raw materials, labor, marketing, retail, etc) Raw material for a gold bracelet is more than an aluminum bracelet. Both jewelry markets are "competitive".

2. Minimum wages affect many more fields than just retail. Your comment made me think that perhaps you just want a retail min wage, but I suspect not.

3. Not just a collection of words that are meaningless. It's from a lecture in my international economics class. We studied all sorts of market inefficiencies, from taxes to min wages, to regulations to quotas to tariffs (which are taxes). Nobody is arguing for "underpaying" employees. The market shall determine what the rate shall be. If offered too low, workers will go elsewhere. We don't live in a one-mill town where the mill owners can exploit the labor force. What was that Sean Connery film? The molly macguires?

4. We can reward workers by lowering the input costs. That will allow them to afford more with their wages. We can reward workers by opening up new jobs for them to work. Minimum wages discourage some folks from offering employment altogether because it's too expensive for them. Let's get low skilled workers (teens) in low wage jobs and allow higher skilled people to march up the employment tree.

I've long been fascinated with these concepts. In college I worked at Bercovich Tobacco and Candy Company in San Leandro one summer. It was a warehouse middleman distributor to retail stores. We loaded trucks over night. I was not union, so I got $8/hr. The union guys working next to me made double. Did that makes sense?

My dad had a similar business in San Francisco. The company was going bankrupt when he bought it on the cheap. Shortly after he began and got things straightened out, saving people's jobs, the union workers struck. He was like "what the hell, you are going to run us under again?!" So one weekend when they were not present, he brought in trucks and moved all the inventory to a cheaper labor market several hours away. Those SF workers could either have their present wages or no wages, either thru bankruptcy or thru competition of others. They got the latter. Sorry, but that's business. Please argue why that was an unjust decision to move the warehouse?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

dajo9 said:

Let's take these statements one at a time:

1.
"Mandating minimum wages would increase cost to customers"
This is more complicated and is one of the most common misunderstandings about economics. Prices for a product are driven by supply and demand, not by cost inputs. A cost inputs affect on supply (and price) is directly correlated to the competitiveness of the industry. Therefore, unless you are a wheat farmer or selling some other easily produced commodity, an increase in prices is most likely to be the result of higher demand generated from customers having more money. In other words, this is most likely true only if I am right.

2.
"Mandating minimum wages makes us less competitive on the world stage where it comes to manufacturing products that compete with those made abroad"
Minimum wages mostly affect retail in which the employee is at the final point of sale with the customer. It is not an international competition.

3.
"Mandating minimum wages is a market distortion, which adds to inefficiency"
This sounds good but is just a combination of words with no meaning. Wealth inequality is a product of efficiency. Underpaying your employees is efficiency from a microeconomics standpoint. Problem is, it creates macroeconomic inefficiencies.

4.
I agree with your take on raising taxes, but we need to do more to reward work in America if we want people working.

1. Not sure what the heck you are referring to. Supply is affected by cost of all units of production to bring final product to market (raw materials, labor, marketing, retail, etc) Raw material for a gold bracelet is more than an aluminum bracelet. Both jewelry markets are "competitive".

2. Minimum wages affect many more fields than just retail. Your comment made me think that perhaps you just want a retail min wage, but I suspect not.

3. Not just a collection of words that are meaningless. It's from a lecture in my international economics class. We studied all sorts of market inefficiencies, from taxes to min wages, to regulations to quotas to tariffs (which are taxes). Nobody is arguing for "underpaying" employees. The market shall determine what the rate shall be. If offered too low, workers will go elsewhere. We don't live in a one-mill town where the mill owners can exploit the labor force. What was that Sean Connery film? The molly macguires?

4. We can reward workers by lowering the input costs. That will allow them to afford more with their wages. We can reward workers by opening up new jobs for them to work. Minimum wages discourage some folks from offering employment altogether because it's too expensive for them. Let's get low skilled workers (teens) in low wage jobs and allow higher skilled people to march up the employment tree.

I've long been fascinated with these concepts. In college I worked at Bercovich Tobacco and Candy Company in San Leandro one summer. It was a warehouse middleman distributor to retail stores. We loaded trucks over night. I was not union, so I got $8/hr. The union guys working next to me made double. Did that makes sense?

5.
My dad had a similar business in San Francisco. The company was going bankrupt when he bought it on the cheap. Shortly after he began and got things straightened out, saving people's jobs, the union workers struck. He was like "what the hell, you are going to run us under again?!" So one weekend when they were not present, he brought in trucks and moved all the inventory to a cheaper labor market several hours away. Those SF workers could either have their present wages or no wages, either thru bankruptcy or thru competition of others. They got the latter. Sorry, but that's business. Please argue why that was an unjust decision to move the warehouse?

1. Gold is a good example where price is completely disjointed from input costs. I'm friends with a ring manufacturer who told me that Wall Street drives the price of precious metals whereas his other input costs have real business drivers. Gold is NOT competitive in an economic sense. Aluminum probably not either because there are steep barriers to entry. That allows for markups. Wheat farming is competitive.

2. Speaking in absolutes never work but today's minimum wage workers are mostly retail and restaurant

3. We disagree about what "underpaying" means. Economic orthodoxy teaches that workers are paid their value but that ignores supply and demand. In reality a workers value is just the ceiling a worker might be paid. If supply of labor dictates that workers can be paid less, they will be.

4. The race to the bottom argument that we've been pursuing for 40 years as wages have fallen behind

5. I think labor unions have outlived their usefulness. They have created a world of blue collar haves and have nots. The haves (labor unions) are just counterproductive to too many business oriented ideas. We need to level up gradually but persistently across the board. Higher minimum wages drive up consumption demand and overall raise the economy and the working class even if there are some individual losers. The winners outnumber them and that includes business owners as winners from experiencing higher revenue.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.