sheeeit

Wow. Did you just claim that my opinion on collusion is invalid because we have not seen all of the evidence relevant to the issue, on a board where literally 1000s of opinions have been given on collusion by other people that also have not seen all of the evidence. I must have missed the posts where you pointed that out to them.

LULZ. What gibberish. I have no idea if trump colluded or not. From what I have scene, my opinion is that he did not. Virtually every act of collusion talked about in the media does not stand up to close inspection. It is all based on anonymous sources and innuendo. Just be honest. What you guys dont like is when you go off on a new tangent (and there have been tons of them and they continue to come) about collusion and how this is the one that will bring trump down and then someone like me actually takes a little closer look at the allegations and applies a little logic and common sense and determines that the allegations are flimsy you guys freak out. I just give my opinion. My opinion could very well be wrong. I doubt it, but it could. Example, just recently one of the usual suspects said that there has been foreign intel for years now that shows collusion. When I read this i think it "smells bad". Then I apply just a tiny bit of logic and critical thinking. I note that the DNI (coats) has every single piece of intelligence that exists in the US at his disposal. I note that he has testified to the house and senate investigations into russsia/collusion. I note that these intel committees have interviewed dozens of intelligence officials including virtually all of the higher ranking ones. I note that, by law, these intelligence folks must reveal what intelligence they have. I then read quotes by 7 or 8 different members of the intel committees who have seen all of this information and none of them say hey have seen any collusion yet. So based on that, my opinion is that there is not any foreign intel that shows collusion. The evidence that the intel exists is based on anonymous sources through media, twitter and blogs. I feel pretty confident betting on the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence over anonymous sources and twitterers. So, as I always do, I outline my position and offer my reasons for why I believe it. And the best rebuttal to my opinion is not a well thought out counter argument or even an attempt at a counter argument. It is met with "Go fuck your face with smokey's dick you dissembling, disingenuous bag of cat shit.". That is reality in this place today.

Just for fun, how about you post something from me that supports some action of trump. FYI, me arguing that trump did not collude with russia is not support of trump as potus. It is my opinion that there was not collusion. You be best too!

College days in Cali. Long ago. I had no experience in sports betting. Roommate has a bookie (bookie is a loose term as it was just another college guy that took bets for someone else) and convinces me to bet with him. Usual story, we start at like $50 a game and start losing early saturday and try to double up. By monday we are down about $5K (which included a $1K bet my roomate did not tell me about) and I had about $150 to my name. We want to double it on monday night but bookie says we have to pay first. My roommate goes to his apartment and gives him his car keys as collateral . My college was in northern cali and roommate was huge 49er fan. We went to the game, Niners vs Redskins. This was montana, rice days. Niners won easily. We were drunk. I did not bet on a sporting event again for nearly 15 years.

I also love how statistics work sometimes. There are a myriad of studies on child poverty that rank the USA either even with or worse off than Mexico. Yet, there are literally hundreds of thousands of mexicans willing to risk their lives and their kids lives to get into the USA and there are virtually zero americans risking anything to get into mexico.

LULZ I am out of this one. I just found it funny that you and Hugo are openly wishing that our country was more like a country that has 40% of its children living in poverty.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/40-of-spanish-children-live-in-poverty/ But they apparently do get great vacation days.

Clearly you guys missed the point completely. I can only say that I think Trump is an awful person so many times. I think he is awful, narcissistic, has no morals, cheated on his wives, etc. I think he is a bad human being. I have said, hundreds of times, that if Mueller finds any collusion, or obstruction or financial fraud that I would support impeachment proceedings immediately. I have said that if Trump fires mueller i would support immediate impeachment proceedings. I have said this stuff numerous times. The only thing I have ever done that is interpreted as supporting trump is that I do not think he colluded with the russians. Thats it. My post above is merely pointing out exactly what you guys are saying. So many of the very things that cause you to hate trump are identical to Avenatti. Yet Avenatti gets white knighted and trump is the worst person in the history of the world. One guy above stated "i Like him". Why? There is absolutely nothing likable about him at all. The hypocrisy is glorious. He has been on CNN hundreds of times. Been on many of the late night talk shows. Why? He shits on trump so everyone gives him a platform even though he is a total piece of shit individual. It has been somewhat shocking to me that this guy has become such a media darling when he, if we truly believe them, represents everything the media says they deplore. I will bet I can find at least 15 people on this site who have posted praise for Avenatti. Praise. Again, for what? For defrauding his former partners? For, allegedly, abusing his ex wives? For not paying his taxes? For withholding money from employees and not sending it to the IRS? For admittedly lying to the court to try and squeeze money out of his clients after he had already been paid in full? You don't think it is a little funny?

JFC. You have no clue what you are talking about. The intel community must, by law, give the various intel committees any evidence they have. Nunes and others are questioning the SOURCE of certain intel and wanting access to the investigative files that show means and procedures for the investigation and the DOJ does not want to provide that info. I can see both sides of that argument. But, there is zero argument that when the heads of the various intel agencies and agents who work in those agencies are made to testify to members of the intel committees in hearings that they can not withhold ANY intelligence they have found. They can claim they do not want to name where the evidence came from or how they got it, butt hey have to disclose the evidence. Just go back yourself and read the questioning the house and senate investigators asked the members of the intel community under oath. You seem to actually think they could be asked direct questions about collusion evidence and just lie.

You serious? You can start with the post I was responding too and search for any one of hundreds of posts on here that claim there is foreign intel that will bring everyone down. But you asserted yourself into this argument by mis-representing my point, which I have now made clear. So how about you answer. Do you believe that there is intel, foreign or otherwise, that the intel community has not shared with the various political committees that are investigating collusion? That there is supposedly explosive intel that proves collusion on the part of trumpco? Either it doesn't exist, or it does exist and either Gowdy read it and ignored it (which is impossible) or the intel community has broken the law by not sharing it.

No. My issue is that the House (completed) and Senate did their own investigations of the collusion angle. The members of those intel committees are privy to ALL of the intelligence that is available from the intel community. That means that Adam Schiff has seen all of the intel compiled from our intel agencies to date. And yes this would include any intel from the British. All of it. So have Nunes (even though retard pods thinks he doesn't have a security clearance) and Gowdy. They have closed their investigation and have found that there was, essentially, no collusion. Now I fully realize that these side investigations are pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things. But the people that conduct them have seen all of the intelligence related to the issue. But people on here are arguing that there is direct, smoking gun type evidence of collusion provided by foreign govts from as early as 2016. The only thing that is "absurd and utterly clownish" is that people believe this. You think it is possible that a guy like Trey Gowdy has been shown foreign intel that shows irrefutable collusion between trump co and the russians and that he just disregarded it and co-authored the House memo with Nunes? That is absurd and utterly clownish.

ROFL. Inspiring response

So, just to be clear, you are continuing to go with this angle (and the usual retards are right there with you) that there is existing intel on this that has been out there for over a year now? Seems unlikely. Especially considering that the house and senate intel committees, by law, get to see all of that intel and, amazingly, none of them have ever acknowledged it. Your boy Schiff? Guy that wrote the rebuttal to Nunes' memo? Not a word about any of this. Shocking. How about Feinstein and Warner and Munchin? All of them are on the intel committee and none of them have said they have seen any collusion. The most they will say is that they have think the trump jr meeting was an "attempt" to collude. So there are only 2 possibilities, 1) the intel agencies have committed crimes by withholding info from the senate and house committees or 2) there is no secret intel that shows collusion and has been out there for over a year.

Avenatti is kind of the poster boy for those that have temporarily (hopefully) lost their minds because of trump. He is everything that most people on here claim they hate: 1) He lies constantly 2) He is financially corrupt including 1) bankrupting the coffee chain he owned and then lied that he owned, 2) failed to pay millions in taxes on the the chain, 3) hired lawyers to help resolve the issue and then stiffed them on their bills and they sued him, 4) failed to honor an agreement with a former law partner that sued him and that he settled with and then failed to honor the settlement 5) failed to pay his personal income taxes, 6) withheld payroll taxes from employees but never sent them to the IRS resulting in a $900K lien against his personal property, 7) recently filed for bankruptcy for his current law firm, 8) lied to the court, and admitted it, to try and get additional money from a judgement he won for his clients even though he had already been paid his entire fee 3) Recently tried to get wealthy dems to fund his attack on trump but was turned down 4) Is twice divorced and both wives claimed abuse in court proceedings but later denied them after the settlements 5) Bought a house and reneged on the terms and had to be forcibly evicted by the owner and is being sued All that from just a few minutes of searching. He is a total slime ball. He lies about everything he is involved with and owes millions to creditors and the IRS and his ex partners and wives. Again, he represents everything people on here say they hate. But he went after trump so he is a star apparently. He claims to be handling the recent immigration cases pro bono but I bet he makes some sort of claim for payment. Might even be a go fund me or similar type situation.

Jesus, tweedledum and tweedledumber (pods is the dumber) at it again. I know you both believe that anything printed in the media or tweeted by people we have never heard of is fact, but at some point you are going to have to try and at least pretend to have brains. You actually think that the CURRENT head of the house intel committee doesn't have a security clearance? That a guy who is a member of the "gang of eight" that get regular classified briefings doesnt have a security clearance? Maybe you two should alert our intelligence community because they keep giving Nunes briefings on all things intelligence related for our country. The combined credibility of you two is laughable. I especially like pods hot take that Nunes doesnt have a clearance so he has his staff get intel for him. It is hard to even comprehend this level of stupidity. I mean that is a perfect secure style right? Deny someone a security clearance but let his staff have one so they can relay the intel to him. Were you guys this dumb before trump?

Your last sentence is the correct answer. If I make $100K/yr and have $200K in debt I am probably just fine to keep paying that debt. If I increase my debt to $400K and also increase my income to $200K I am still ok. The problem is when our debt increases much more rapidly than income. Historically, it really has not been a dem vs repub issue. Reagan gets a lot of shit for increasing the debt by a large percentage (some of it deserved) but he increased gdp equally well and his debt to gdp ratio was pretty flat during his presidency. The problem is that when we have downturns like 2008, the govt just pumps money into the system to keep things from getting really ugly. It can be debated either way if that is sound financial policy or not but it is what we do. The key today is whether or not our current growth is sustainable and, if so, if we will take steps to curb our deficit. I do not think I have ever endorsed/supported anything Trump has said or done from a policy standpoint (all I have ever really said about trump is that i do not think he colluded with russia and for that I have been labelled a trumpkin asshole which is funny). But, it is absolutely impossible as a country to grow when we have massive trade deficits. Impossible like 1+1=3 is also impossible. It is undebatable. Very few people do not agree that Trump is an amoral, narcissistic, unsophisticated blow hard much of the time. But he is absolutely right on trade policy. The US govt basically sold out the country over the last 40 years. Our trade deals are ridiculously bad for the US. The very short answer is that the we elect people has caused our politicinas to make continued short sighted economic decisions. In short, they decided that if Johnny was earning $100 and was spending $70 that is was better for Johnny to continue and make $100 and try and get cheaper goods so that he would only have to spend $65. What they should have done is get Johnny to make $150 and let his spending go to $85. But that is hard and requires patience and discipline. Unless we change our trade practices, we will never ever get our debt situation in check. People rail on here about tariffs yet they really have no idea what they are talking about. Trump proposed a zero tariff on anyone anywhere idea to the world. Guess what happened? Not one single country wanted that. Why do you think that is? They know they can not compete with the US on a level playing field. On trade, Trump is right. The manner he uses to try and change things will absolutely be criticized in the short term, but, imo, in the long term it will be very beneficial to the country.

Bates- You need to do a little research. The statement "FERS is a fully funded system" does not mean that it is currently fully funded. It is describing the TYPE of system in place. All that statement means is that the employer, in this case the federal govt, is legally obligated to pay for it. Currently the combined un-funded liabilities of the two plans is approximately $1.7 Trillion. The reserves, for lack of a better term, for the money in the CSRDF is nothing more than promises from the govt to pay them. The money is, in no way, sitting in the bank. Our govt (and we the tax payers) are on the hook for $1.7Trillion in payments and there is no reserve to pay it.

Wait. You graduated business school and posted this: "That's just the bullshit pricing book hospitals use. It's a fucking price scam. They "charge' that upfront to show the insurance companies that they're getting a "discount"rate so that insurance companies can pay only 500 for the aspirin on their books. Meanwhile, the insurance company draws that amount out of their funds in payment, but then recovered the discount in their own books, passing the "savings" onto the premiums the customers pay, since there are "rules" as to how much they can collect. The actual margin doesn't see the light of day. It's a scam called "middling"" Was it Trump's business school? I mean this line "Meanwhile, the insurance company draws that amount out of their funds in payment, but then recovered the discount in their own books" is practically gibberish. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the accounting method that allows an insurance company to "recovered their discount on their own books".

I will do this but I am quite certain you will not get it. Lets be clear on what I claimed- I claimed that a person can work for a service like uber, very part time, and work during peak hours and earn a net of $20/hr. This is a supplement to their base income. Some things to consider in your retort: 1) Cost of car ownership- The payments for the car do not change if you happen to drive for uber. Obviously this scenario does not work if we are describing a hypothetical person that already has a day job but has no car. I am assuming someone that already has a car. Like 90% or more of people with regular day jobs. 2) Maintenance- Not sure what extra maintenance you would need for 70-80 more miles a week on your car. Maybe an extra oil change a year? $25/year. 3) Extensive Repairs- This is supposed to be Uber not demolition derby. 4) Gas- OK 5) Insurance- My understanding is that uber covers the driver while in route to a pick up or while a passenger is in the car. I did a quick search and it appears you can supplement your current insurance to pick up any gaps that may exist for about $50/month. So my guy is going to work on the night of a concert at the AA in Dallas and will work for one hour. he will have 2 rides that take people from the AA to Preston Hollow. Each ride is about 6 miles and should take about 15 minutes. The cost for the rides according to Uber is $18.50 per ride assuming no surge pricing (i would assume concerts have surge pricing but i do not know). So my guy grosses $37/hr. Take out 25% for Uber and he is left with $27.75. Most estimates I have seen say to account for about 20% in expenses like gas, extra insurance etc. So after that my guy is left with $22.20. That is without any tips or any surge pricing. No one ever suggested that someone could average $20/hr all the time or for an equivalent 40 hour work week. But it is absolutely reasonable to expect to average at least a net of $20/hr in spot driving.

Some of this housing talk really misses the point on the original intent of the thread. I realize it may sound crazy to some, but in the example I provided earlier about a single mom with 2 kids using govt assistance to get a nursing degree, guess what- she might not be able to do it as easily in Austin. Austin has obviously exploded and that comes with a ton of consequences for those starting out. But nurses get paid great in every community. And virtually every major health system will pay for relocation costs.

I have never worked for a company like uber but I am quite familiar with what a driver can earn. If you are willing to work weekends, at events and during price surges and you can not net $20/hr then you suck at uber.

Not really true. In virtually every community, there are subdivisions going in that are smaller starter homes. Granted they are not in the most desirable locations, but they never will be for long. There are a number of developments in Austin alone where the houses are priced from $85K to $125K. Same with Dallas, Houston, Ft Worth etc.

Hayden- Your overall point is understood but you should really research Henry Ford if you want to use him as an example because it is not the point you think it is. Ford is a fascinating man and company. I did huge paper on him back in college. Ford had a horrible employee issue when he first started. It would cost him a lot to train people to be able to work in his factories. Your line of building a car is about like flipping a burger is just incredibly naive and ignorant. It MIGHT be close to that 2017 but it most certainly was not in 1908. Ford really made his mark by improving the manufacturing process for cars. The cost to train an employee in 1908 was extremely high. Ford would spend lots of money to train an employee and then that employee would bolt to another auto manufacturer for more money than Ford was paying at the time. I can not remember the exact number but, at the time of the wage increase, Ford was having to hire 3 workers every year to fill 1 spot. As a result, Ford increased wages for SKILLED laborers on his assembly line. He did it for retention. The best mechanics in the area then flocked to Ford and his net cost to build a car actually went DOWN (for perspective the net cost to produce a hamburger is not going to go down if they double the wages of their employees). It had the nice byproduct of also allowing him to talk publicly about increased wages, but the market dictated what he had to pay his people to keep them and he paid that rate and nothing more. Ford also instituted what I think was called the "Social Unit" or something similar and he actually had private investigators watch his employees and would weed out people based on lifestyles he did not like (the biggies were gambling and child support). It was highly controversial as you can imagine. Further, Ford was notorious for paying his UNSKILLED labor as little as possible, even to the point that he tried to get his SKILLED folks to cover other duties but they refused. And he was adamantly opposed to labor unions. Ford is a classic example of letting the market dictate wages coupled with increasing efficiencies. Further, a lot of you guys love to rail on how corporations and ceos make so much money. What Ford earned compared to his employees was greater than today. In the early 1920s, Ford was earning around $90M annually. That is equivalent to about $2.5B today.

That is why I said this is unscientific. In Austin, very few people make $9.15/hr including cashiers. I absolutely guarantee you that if someone works for HEB and shows up every day they are scheduled and is conscientious about their job that they will make a lot more than $9.15/hr within a matter of months. I found multiple apartments in a 30 second search for about $680/month. No doubt rent is higher today but that is a factor of a lot of things. Home ownership cost, on the low end, is actually cheaper proportionately. You can buy new construction 1600' 3 bed 2 bath in Austin through an FHA loan for about $500/month. There are certainly things that are proportionately more expensive now and others that are not. You also did not have the ability to drive around in your own car for a few hours a few nights a week and net $20/hr with services like Uber. Similarly, no one spent $80/month for a phone in 1980. I personally thought it was interesting that most staples are pretty close, proportionately, to what they were in 1980. The point was to Brisket's comment about a cashier in 1980 versus now. A person can live pretty close to proportionately the same IF they are willing to live like we did in 1980. Small house, one car, basic food and clothing, 4-5 free channels of tv, free radio, lots of trips to the park etc. I am not, however, arguing that people should live that way or in any way think it is realistic to do so. I am just saying it is possible.

I agree with this and, I think my proposal would achieve what you are looking for. For those that are truly disabled (either physically or mentally) we need to support them for life. For the able bodied that were born into bad situations, we need to make every effort to support them long enough for them to succeed. The really hard answers are for those people who are clearly able bodied but continue to make bad decisions (often drug related) and wind up unemployable. Right now most of them end up in prison. We will never get 100% but we can certainly set a goal of getting say 50% of people that are currently able bodied but on govt help off of it within 3 years.