sheeeit

I was curious about this so did a little checking. The results surprised me. Of course this is only a snapshot and lots of the info was given in averages but interesting. Cashier average hourly 1980- $5.15, milk $1.89 (.37 of wage), gas $1.25 (.24), rent $310 (60.2), levis $26 (5) Cashier average hourly 2017- $9.15, milk $3.22 (.35), gas $2.60 (.28), rent $840 (91), levis $38 (4.1) This is certainly not scientific at all but for the price of most basic goods, the cost today is very equivalent to the price in 1980. I would suspect that medical care is higher proportionately now but it is damned hard to get true numbers.

Well this thread really went off on a tangent. One of the biggest issues with these types of discussions is that people, on both sides, let emotion cloud their judgement and they replace reality with emotion. The following are some real world examples of how things work. There are very few absolutes but the following is one and no matter how much we might want it to be different it can never be different. Unless we are willing to put caps on what businesses can charge for their services and combine that with closing all outside trade completely, the lowest skilled/earners will never make a living wage. It is economically impossible in a capitalistic system. Impossible. If we decide that today a living wage needs to be $15/hr then everyone in the system is going to get an effective raise. Obviously if Widget company is currently paying someone $12/hr for one job and another $15/hr for another, then when the $12 guy gets bumped to $15 then the guy at $15 is going to get bumped to $18. That is reality. So when everyone gets a raise guess what happens? The price of milk goes up. Rent goes up. Pizza goes up. Inflation is inevitable when wages are rising. It does not happen overnight, but happens within 2-3 years. So, in 2-3 years, the guys who needed $15/hr to make a living wage are no longer making a living wage and we are right back where we started from. Some argue, ignorantly, that we should then have the living wage increase proportionately with inflation. All this does is keep driving up costs for everyone in the system. That is why I said earlier that unless we cap prices on goods AND eliminate imports the system will not work. When the US keeps artificially (by artificially I mean govt mandating a higher than market wage) raising costs in our system we are, obviously, becoming less competitive on the global scale and business and jobs and wages will start to decrease. The illustration to this point can be seen by using an outrageous example that is not really outrageous. Why set the living wage at $15? Why not make it $100? Why not $1000? The answer is because it doesn't matter. No matter what we set it to, it will not be enough in a few years time due to inflation. The solution to this problem is not easy but it is not overly difficult either. There is an absolute role for the govt and our tax dollars to play in this. There is zero question that people start out with different luck when born. It is massively harder for the child of a single/low income parent to break out of the cycle. That is just reality and bitching about it or complaining about it or blaming someone else for it has never and will never do anyone any good other than making themselves feel better. It isnt going to change the situation one bit. The US is absolutely rich enough to provide assistance. But, where most of us seem to differ is on how that assistance should be provided. If we all agree that our various starting points in life are different and some have built in advantages, then the govt's role should be to provide services and avenues that allow the less fortunate to improve on their situations. Th reality is that there are many, many such services and avenues available to lower income people but they are massively under used. A few examples. Lets say there is a single mom with 2 kids and support from the dad (i am going to make another post about this situation). very, very hard for that mom to earn a living wage for her family without govt help. So the govt should help. That single mom, can have her kids at school and after school care or in daycare right now for free. She can take nursing classes at a local community college or even online for the bulk of it and the govt will, and should, pay for it. While taking the courses the govt will, and should, provide welfare for her and her family to keep them going. They are not going to get to take a disney vacation, but they will be fed and housed and clothed. if the single mom does this, in 2 years she can get a job earning more than double the living wage people talk about. Starting nursing salaries are about $67K. Virtually every medical entity will actually hire this mom before she completes her degree if she wants the job and pay her more than $15/hr. The caveat is that she has to keep making progress on her degree. But, in 2 short years she can change the trajectory of her family immensely. I realize that it sounds easy in theory but there is abundant anecdotal evidence that it is not only possible but actively happens everyday. Where I see the biggest need in all of this is making those in need aware of the services that are out there. The govt should set up non-profits (or better let private businesses do the work for a commission) that serve no purpose except to educate people on the programs that are available and help walk them through all of the paper work and qualifications and everything else necessary to get approved. I would make it completely separate from existing govt services. Call it career enhancement agency. But staff it with folks that know how to make the services work. There are 1000s of programs out there right now. There are tens of thousands of open jobs that pay well over a living wage that are available with a little training. Education, welding, nursing, trucking, construction, plumbing, electrician, software, electronics, landscape, classroom, grants, loans, etc. Spend govt money to market and advertise the facilities and what they provide. Provide transportation vouchers to people coming in. Make it so that no one can claim they were not aware of the facilites or that it was just too hard to get there. And to complete the circle, while mom or dad is working to get ahead with a new career with lots and lots of help from the govt, then let the teenagers of these moms and dads work at the fast food places and similar for spending money. Let them acquire the skills that people have mentioned on here before, responsibility, dealing with customers, limited accounting etc. And let them get paid a minimum wage to do it. Then they can transition to college and beyond or their own trade.

Heard some talking heads going on about obstruction sunday morning and it seems to be a renewed theme on here. I just do not see how this goes anywhere. Lets address the flynn stuff first. Comey testified under oath that when Trump asked him to (paraphrasing) "let it go" with Flynn, that Comy believed the only thing Trump was asking him to let go was the apparent discrepancy in Flynn's transition conversation with Kislyak and what they discussed and how he, flynn, may have misled investigators about the conversations. Not anything at all related to the broader russian investigation. In fact, Comey further testified that Trump asked him to continue investigating anyone on his, Trump's, staff that may have colluded with russia. From the transcript: "SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Director Comey, the meeting in the oval office where he made the request about Mike Flynn, was that only time he asked you to hopefully let it go? COMEY: Yes. RUBIO: And in that meeting, as you understood it, he was asking not about the general Russia investigation, he was asking specifically about the jeopardy that Flynn was in himself? COMEY: That's how I understood it. Yes, sir." And, the fbi folks who have reviewed the transcripts of the call with Kislyak, have all said that there is no mention of anything illegal in the call, that Flynn was not acting on orders from anyone above him and that the topic of sanctions was "speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward' terms." Nothing even remotely connected to collusion or a quid pro quo or anything like that. So we have a phone call between the incoming NSA and the ambassador from Russia that contained nothing illegal, had no relation to anyone higher up the political chain than Flynn himself and that just generally spoke about sanctions (which of course was one of Kislyak's highest orders from his boss). For some reason, it appears Flynn may have mislead investigators about that call and, as a result, he was fired and faced charges of lying and Trump asked comey to let that go because flynn had already been fired. I see no possible way that mueller or anyone else is going to be able to make a case of obstruction out of that. On the comey firing, comey, again under oath, testified that trump told him, comey, to keep investigating anyone on trump's team that may have colluded. That really should end the issue of obstruction. Further, after he fired mueller, he told rosenstein, according to rosenstein himself, to continue investigating anyone in trumps team that may have colluded with russia. I suppose you could make the argument that Trump did not tell them to investigate him personally, but comey, again under oath, told trump he was not under investigation personally. Comey ""I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative," Comey wrote. I am also not sure that mueller is really even actively investigating the obstruction angle. He certainly could be but he might not be. If we take as truth that Rosenstein told Trumps lawyers recently that trump was not a target of any investigation, then what do we make of obstruction? Only trump could be the target of obstruction right? We have heard nothing at all about anyone else potentially trying to obstruct. I am not sure how you can have an investigation into obstruction by trump without trump being the target of the investigation. I also do not see how any additional information about the obstruction could be upcoming. The scope of the obstruction is very small and it has to have already been investigated thoroughly by now. I do believe that one of the reasons that mueller wants to interview trump is to ask him about the comey firing and see if trump is dumb enough to admit something he shouldnt. I cant see trump being that dumb and I certainly cant see his lawyers letting him say anything close to obstruction. He will have his narrative down solidly and there really is not any way to prove what was in his heart.

Good god this is some ignorant posting. I would love to here an explanation for how a company "recovered the discount in their own books". Would be fascinating to hear. Equally fascinating would be how this "middling" practice actually has an impact on margins.

Fucking perfect. You said we KNOW something and said there are emails to prove it. You then provide an article based on, shocking, anonymous sources. And the article makes exactly zero mentions of any emails by prince acknowledging anything. I am starting to feel like Brisket and his unending notion that no one in the country will ever do the right thing. I keep waiting for someone, anyone to call out the continual lies and misrepresentations but none of you have. I am ever hopeful though. Do any of you want to comment on this? Anyone willing to go on record that an anonymous source that mentions nothing about any emails from Erik Prince is definitive proof that Prince lied about his testimony and we have emails before and after the meeting to prove it? Anyone?

This is a perfect microcosm of all things trump and all things Pods. You continually accuse me of lying or ignoring stuff, which I have never done and if you can find an example I will be happy to respond. But this statement above is just a full on made up lie. Please show us a source that proves that prince had emails before and after the Seychelles meeting that contradict his testimony. Total bullshit.

If you guys just want some big, bad trump circle jerk then so be it. I thought this was a place to exchange different ideas. I see no need to pile on the negative trump stuff does as there are already 50 or more folks that do so on a daily basis. I have posted, many many times, that I would have preferred a ton of people to him as potus but that hillary is not one of them. But if hillary had won, i would not support impeaching her on unproven things or supposition in the media. I never once suggested anything remotely like that when obama was potus and there were a ton of positions he took that i disagreed with. On incidents like behngazi, I made only one comment at the time which was that I felt Hillary was derelict in her duties as SOS since she told us that the attack was triggered by the movie release in Egypt and that, if that was the case and tensions were hot in the ME in the weeks leading up to the anniversary of 9/11, that we should have had all of our embassies and related facilities in the ME on high alert and extra security should have been in place. I have said, many many times, that i will fully support whatever mueller finds. If trump colluded then he should be impeached. If he obstructed justice then he should be impeached. If he has criminality in his business dealings then I think he should be impeached. But i will not support the impeachment of any potus because he is childish, thin skinned, dumb, orange or whatever. That is what elections are for. I have made my theory on events very public. I find the blind trust in media articles and twitter dorks that quote anonymous sources, to be beneath the intelligence of most of you. They COULD be accurate but when you do some digging they almost always do not hold up to scrutiny. But if you really just want a place to go where there is only one side of every story told then this may not be the place for you. It certainly would not be for me.

Stupid is as stupid does. First, Flynn already had his security clearance from when Obama was in charge. It never even came up for renewal under trump. Had there been an exhaustive investigation of flynns dealing BEFORE his clearance review came up then I would think he might not have been provided clearance, but i do not know. Second, Kushners was a new request. Rosenstein was involved in the investigation (just google rosenstein kushner clearance). Rosenstein is obviously aware of the entirety of the mueller investigation to date. So, again, for any of your theories to be true, rosenstein would have had to either let a background check go to the wh that he, rosenstein, know is innacurate or it was clear enough to warrant top security clearance or the wh just ignored the report. I would think a guy like rosenstein would not allow a person that was on the verge of being indicted for conspiracy against the US to have an unlimited security clearance with access to all of the govt secrets including those related to foreign countries.

Because the fbi did the security investigation on kushner and rosenstein was involved with it. You guys can not have it both ways. rosenstein is not going to release a "positive" background investigation on Kushner to the wh if he knows that kushner is in deep shit with mueller. That would be incredibly reckless and likely criminal on the part of rosenstein.

Mostly because I have a hard time believing that John Kelly would ok a top secret security clearance to a person that was about to be indicted by the fbi for conspiracy against the US. Also, I have a very hard time believing that that the upper echelon of the doj and fbi would not speak up or leak or something similar if they are aware that a top secret security clearance was given to a person that was about to be indicted. Honestly, I think it would be criminal of those people to not speak up.

The twisting is funny to watch. The fbi does the investigations for security clearances. The fbi did the security investigation for Kushner. According to multiple reports, in february, rosenstein called mcgahn or trump to alert them that kushner's application needed more time to investigate. Kushner granted clearance in May. So only one of 2 things could have happened. 1) the fbi's report was clean enough for Kushner to get a clearance or 2) the fbi's report recommended not giving clearance and the WH did it anyway. For the scenario that you and others want us to believe, the fbi told the wh that Kushner was currently under investigation by the fbi, was likely to be indicted by the fbi, had numerous ties to foreign govts and was a great candidate to be either blackmailed or bribed for influence and then, with that report, the wh gave kushner clearance anyway. I think that is an unlikely scenario.

I do not really know anything about Stone and if he is corrupt then fuck him. But what did he do here that would be illegal? Why would he be indicted? I actually read the article. Both people involved say they never received any info direct from Assange and there is no record of any info. In fact, the go beteween said he never even requested the info from Assange. I honestly do not know the answer but is it illegal to ask if someone has hacked emails? If they do is it illegal to receive them?

I have no idea if the Halper stuff is true or not. If we assume he did approach Page, Papa and Clovis then, imo, it is only a problem if he was either asked to approach them by someone in govt or if he told someone he was going to do it. If he approached them on his own then i do not see how it could be a problem for the fbi. If he did work with the fbi then there almost certainly has to be a paper trail. Also, it would be highly coincidental if the fbi based the start of their investigation on the actions of Page and Papa and Halper reached out to both of them out of the blue with little or no prior connection to them. The problem with comments like this relates to the timing. The fbi said it started an investigation in July 2016. All of the Halper contacts were before that. Of course the fbi can and does use informants but if they base part of the investigation on the role of the informants then they have to disclose their use of them. They can not ask an informant to try and get close to trump folks and not consider that the start of the investigation. There has to be a concrete reason to ask the informant to try and get close.

Is that a serious question? Arming a territory that putin wants or halting the investigation in an unrelated country that has no jurisdiction over a guy that is already indicted in the US? I would also like to know how trump asked putin which he preferred and how they got ukraine to be involved in their plot. Bat phone?

How is it not comical that you guys have all determined that Kushner is guilty as sin, has likely flipped to mueller, is going to be indicted any day now while simultaneously the very organization that is supposedly investigating him and has all of the dirt on him just gave him top secret security clearance. How many times have we read that we do not know what mueller knows? 1,000? Rosenstein was the one that called trump initially to tell him that kushners clearance was delayed. Obviously, Rosenstein knows everything mueller knows since mueller reports to rosenstein. You think mueller told rosenstein that he had kushner dead to rights and that he has all kinds of foreign baggage and contacts with spies and actually (at least according to some of you) led a coup to get sanctions against qatar and Rosenstein said thanks but I think we will give him security clearance anyway? Actually Pods retard will probably spin this as mueller using kushner as a double agent to get trump so he gave him security clearance to throw trump off.

This might be my new favorite angle. According to you, trump is putins bitch and there is so much dirt on trump that the russians have that he is literally being blackmailed by russia as I type. yet, he gave missiles to ukraine (currently a sworn enemy with current hostilities with russia and putin) so that the ukraine would stop investigating Manafort who was already indicted in the US. That is fantastic!!!!! Question, when does putin unleash his dirt? Do we need to arm more countries hostile to russia before it is time?

They did? Who? Maybe they stayed at one of the trump properties that you so boldly informed us were 100% full because of trump influence.

Regarding Kushner, he very well may be a complete pussy and be totally inept. I have no idea. This is not a defense of Kushner. I could not care less about him or what happens to him. I do however like how so many of you can make definitive claims about his make up and character based on..........his looks? Funny to me but irrelevant. On the disclosure form and clearance stuff, I am afraid that, once again, you guys have been duped by the media. The media did not lie per se, they just twisted the facts to paint suspicious scenario as they do with all things trump. This is just my opinion and I realize that it will be in complete contrast to the vast majority of you but here goes. So much is made of Kushners 3 tries at his sf-86. The original one was submitted with zero foreign contacts. Kushner said the form was sent in before it was complete. Could be total bullshit but the state dept did confirm that there were not any foreign contacts on the first submission. In the second submission he reported all of his contacts. For the final submission, he was not asked to change his form and he was not required to change his form but he did anyway to include the meeting with Natalia (i think my old spelling of her name looks better). A few quotes: "Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer, said he believes that a disclosure of the meeting would not have been required, because Veselnitskaya is not now a government lawyer and Kushner does not have a close or continuing relationship with her." "Edward B. MacMahon Jr., another national security lawyer in private practice, said he “can’t imagine there’s a risk of prosecution” with Kushner." Also, what does the fact that he received his clearance tell us? He has been interviewed by mueller maybe twice, has testified under oath to sic and hic (I think). he clearly has been under the fbi microscope for over a year, yet he was given clearance. makes me think there is nothing on him. I would hope that if there is even a hint of criminality regarding Kushner in the investigation that he would not get any clearance. Yet he did. And please spare all of us the angle that trump just intervened and did this. No possible way. That would have been leaked to every single media outlet in the world.

And she did not. Are you guys talking about the interview? The one where she claimed to be an informer for the russian govt? You realize she never said that right? She was speaking russian and they interpreted her words in english. Watch the WHOLE interview. She is indignant that she never lied at all in her testimony. She disclosed her relationship with the russian govt in her testimony. She worked for the GPO early in her career and then interacted with them on a case she was defending in the US that involved a russian company. She disclosed all of that in her testimony.

Where did I get called out on Natalia (other than I am bad at spelling apparently? My stance on her has not changed at all.

Really? I did a 30 second Google search and found the following. https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-hotel-prices-drop-organization-717189%3famp=1 Rental rates for his properties are down everywhere and the prime hotel that is the center of the allegations, is one in Washington DC, has a 20% lower occupancy rate than the other hotels in its class. What the fuck are you even talking about.

Wow. Nice leap there. If Trump took bribes he should go down. If he accepted gifts from foreign govts he should go down. If foreign govts paid over market rates for trump properties he should go down. Nowhere did I try and turn the definition of emoluments into bribery. Sheesh.

I suppose I would consider a bribe to be an emolument. Why? If it is ever proved that trump took a bribe he will go down.

The emoluments issue is a tricky one. But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim. There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act. I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS. IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit. The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected. With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid. If it was over market, then trump should go down. I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity. I would support following up on that.

You guys are amazing. You are all actually so stupid or lazy that you do not even know what you are talking about. I am guessing that none of you actually read any of Nataliya's testimony. I know reading is hard and understanding it is harder but you guys should give it a try. Here is the relevant passage from the NYT article: "But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm." For you uninformed (which is most of you) N was the lead attorney for a company called Prezevon that was sued by the US attorney's office for money laundering. The US attorneys office requested information on Prezevon from their counter part in Russia (its a log name but we will call it the GPO). When the GPO was asked by the US to provide information on Prezevon, the GPO contacted N to coordinate their response as she was the lead attorney for Prezevon. Her only contact was as her capacity as the lawyer for Prezevon and all of the dealings with the GPO were in the Prezevon case. This is absolutely common. If IBM is being sued in Russia and Russia asks the Federal govt to give them info on IBM the first thing the Feds will do is call the US lawyers representing IBM in the case. So, now you morons (who clearly have not read the testimony) say this is evidence N lied in her testimony. Not only is it not a lie, she admitted it and talked about it in her testimony. First, she admits in her opening statement that she worked for the GPO early in her career: "My name is Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya. I am a citizen of the Russian Federation. I am a lawyer and a managing partner at Kamerton Consulting, a law firm, and I am licensed to work as an attorney-at-law in the Russian Federation. I operate independently of any governmental bodies. In 1998, I graduated with honors from the Moscow State Legal Academy. Upon graduation, I started working at the Central Administration of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Moscow Region where I ended up being promoted to the position of the head of the department for control over legality of the legislation adopted by the legislative bodies of the Moscow Region (the Governor, Government and the Duma). I have been practicing as a private attorney since the spring of 2001. In 2003, I established a private law firm, Kamerton Consulting. I specialize in representing clients that are parties to civil (arbitration) and criminal cases primarily associated with economic disputes or violations." Second, she fully admits she worked with the GPO in her formal capacity as a lawyer (Chaika is he head of the GPO): "22. What is your relationship with Chaika, his office, and/or his representatives? I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives, and institutions, other than those related to my professional functions of a lawyer. As a lawyer of Denis Katsyv, since 2013 I have sent several appeals to the Russian Federation General Prosecutor's Office requesting documents within my legal powers, and also filed applications to verify the information about Mr. Browder’s activities in Russia that resulted in the wrongful seizure of my client's assets in the USA and Switzerland, received answers, analyzed them and addressed them anew, should I be refused answers or provision of documents – I appealed to the court. I was also invited several times to explain the contents of my applications for documents that I collected in the framework of my legal procedure. Similar work was done by me as a lawyer in the Investigative Department of the RF Ministry of Internal Affairs. Several times I was formally received by the Prosecutor General of Russia. I have interacted with the RF Prosecutor General several times in the capacity of a lawyer. For example, this summer, I was granted an audience with the RF Prosecutor General, Yu. Ya. Chaika, to deliver an official statement in connection with my defending an American citizen and a member of the US Jewish community who had been arrested in Moscow in the spring of this year for importing forbidden items. The young man was facing up to four years in prison. I accepted him as a client on his family’s request when I was still in New York. And despite the fact that the US Embassy refused to participate in the fate of the American citizen (I spoke with the US Consul in Moscow several times asking the embassy to submit a petition to the RF Prosecutor General’s Office which the embassy never bothered to do), thanks to the well-coordinated cooperation with US lawyers and experts, members of the Moscow and CHARLES E. GRASSLEY November 20, 2017 Page 23 of 52 US Jewish communities, once Mr. Chaika had heard out the arguments of the defense and instructed that they be verified, the case was closed; my client was ordered to pay a small court penalty and allowed to return home to his family. I have no right to identify the client but the case is well known to the US Embassy in Moscow." So gee maybe once again you sheep were fooled by the media and NYT. N never lied at all in her testimony and she actually admitted under oath the exact thing that you dorks said she lied about. I have no idea how you will spin this one, but it would be nice if just once one of you had the balls to admit that you were either wrong or at least admit that you were relying on a news story that was wrong.