Election Day

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:I don't see anything anywhere that remotely proves there were chartered busses, high dollar signs,  outside organizers, or that Soros gave any money.

I haven't seen a monkey that blind since Dr. Pangloss in the GPV days.  

http://www.kvue.com/mb/news/local/verify/verify-questions-of-anti-trump-protesters/351156363

You go ahead and post monkeys,  I'll post facts.

Dr Pangloss wasn't blind. A tad far-sighted maybe and smoked like a chimney, but certainly not blind.

Judging by your debunked comments on the chartered busses he was.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:I don't see anything anywhere that remotely proves there were chartered busses, high dollar signs,  outside organizers, or that Soros gave any money.

I haven't seen a monkey that blind since Dr. Pangloss in the GPV days.  

http://www.kvue.com/mb/news/local/verify/verify-questions-of-anti-trump-protesters/351156363

You go ahead and post monkeys,  I'll post facts.

Dr Pangloss wasn't blind. A tad far-sighted maybe and smoked like a chimney, but certainly not blind.

Judging by your debunked comments on the chartered busses he was.

So? I linked to charter buses parked on Canal St in Chicago. And while it's not unusual to see buses parked there because of the free parking, there is nothing to indicate that these weren't protestor buses. Just a short walk to Millennium Park where most of the demonstrations have been starting. How convenient. Dayum your reading comprehension skills suck.

Dr. Evil wrote:Man those campaign promises are dropping like flies...

Ryan: 'We are not planning on erecting a deportation force'
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-obamacare-deportation-force/index.html

Crikers, no wonder you guys hate Ryan so much.   About all that's left is Trump's promise to be a racist,  misogynist, bigot.  The KKK better move up their parade before Trump renigs on that promise.  Just kidding,  all know he won't do that.

Jammer wrote:The only one stupid enough to believe a SOROS STOOGE is ANOTHER SOROS STOOGE.  You assholes are complete morons.

Now go and submit your time card on your SOROS website and get your untraceable gift card.  I can't wait until Trump comes down on you assholes.  You are a tax avoiding enemy of the state

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:I don't see anything anywhere that remotely proves there were chartered busses, high dollar signs,  outside organizers, or that Soros gave any money.

I haven't seen a monkey that blind since Dr. Pangloss in the GPV days.  

http://www.kvue.com/mb/news/local/verify/verify-questions-of-anti-trump-protesters/351156363

You go ahead and post monkeys,  I'll post facts.

SOROS STOOGE

Don't you have a monkey?  Everybody likes monkeys.

Dr. Evil wrote:More of the same.  Unrealistic, raises the low end tax bracket, helps the top .2%.  Blue collar America, you've been duped.

Those tax cuts may be too expensive
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/pf/taxes/trump-tax-plan/index.html

"The estate tax is history," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More of the same.  Unrealistic, raises the low end tax bracket, helps the top .2%.  Blue collar America, you've been duped.

Those tax cuts may be too expensive
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/pf/taxes/trump-tax-plan/index.html

"The estate tax is history," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center.

Woot! I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Omaha.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More of the same.  Unrealistic, raises the low end tax bracket, helps the top .2%.  Blue collar America, you've been duped.

Those tax cuts may be too expensive
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/pf/taxes/trump-tax-plan/index.html

"The estate tax is history," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center.

Woot! I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Omaha.

I wonder what they are planning on cutting to pay for that?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More of the same.  Unrealistic, raises the low end tax bracket, helps the top .2%.  Blue collar America, you've been duped.

Those tax cuts may be too expensive
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/pf/taxes/trump-tax-plan/index.html

"The estate tax is history," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center.

Woot! I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Omaha.

I wonder what they are planning on cutting to pay for that?

The estate tax only raised $19.4B in 2014 or about .6% of total Federal revenues. Eliminating the $20B in crop subsidies would easily offset that amount.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More of the same.  Unrealistic, raises the low end tax bracket, helps the top .2%.  Blue collar America, you've been duped.

Those tax cuts may be too expensive
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/pf/taxes/trump-tax-plan/index.html

"The estate tax is history," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center.

Woot! I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Omaha.

I wonder what they are planning on cutting to pay for that?

The estate tax only raised $19.4B in 2014 or about .6% of total Federal revenues. Eliminating the $20B in crop subsidies would easily offset that amount.

I think that given our governments cheap food policies along with comparatively low commodity prices, many producers would agree with you.

A reasonable formula for approximating how the price of a food item would change because of a change in the price of a raw ingredient is to multiply the percent change in the price of the raw ingredient by the share of the price of the food item that is represented by the cost of the raw ingredient. For example, corn represents perhaps 38 percent of the cost of producing a market-ready hog. The cost of a market-ready hog represents 28 percent of the final retail price of pork. This means that corn represents approximately 10.64 percent of the retail price of pork.

Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.

It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent. But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double. The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More of the same.  Unrealistic, raises the low end tax bracket, helps the top .2%.  Blue collar America, you've been duped.

Those tax cuts may be too expensive
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/pf/taxes/trump-tax-plan/index.html

"The estate tax is history," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center.

Woot! I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Omaha.

I wonder what they are planning on cutting to pay for that?

The estate tax only raised $19.4B in 2014 or about .6% of total Federal revenues. Eliminating the $20B in crop subsidies would easily offset that amount.

I think that given our governments cheap food policies along with comparatively low commodity prices, many producers would agree with you.

The justification of farm subsidies as a lynchpin of  "cheap food policies" in the US is a myth. Economist Bruce Babcock at Iowa State University explains:

A reasonable formula for approximating how the price of a food item would change because of a change in the price of a raw ingredient is to multiply the percent change in the price of the raw ingredient by the share of the price of the food item that is represented by the cost of the raw ingredient. For example, corn represents perhaps 38 percent of the cost of producing a market-ready hog. The cost of a market-ready hog represents 28 percent of the final retail price of pork. This means that corn represents approximately 10.64 percent of the retail price of pork.

Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.

It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent. But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double. The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_06/article1.aspx

Dr. Evil wrote:Wow! $500B in additional defense spending.  I hope he has a plan put together on what he's planning on cutting.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/09/06/politics/donald-trump-defense-spending-sequester/index.html?client=ms-android-verizon

I have a question.  If you had a neighbor who had an over the top security system,  and attack dogs,  and guns on turrets poking out of every window, while his his kids wore rags and holy shoes, and were starving, would you consider him to be strong or powerful?

Dr. Evil wrote:Small business owners need Obamacare.  I remember when Obamacare first started, my insurance agent was excited because he would finally be able to offer his employees insurance.  I'm in the same boat.  I have 5 employees that I want to make full time when I land a couple more key contracts.  I want to offer full benefits at that point,  but if Trump kills Obamacare I won't be able to do that,  and that will leave me vulnerabil to large businesses that do.  Ohhh the uncertainty.....

Entrepreneurs to Trump: Don't take away our Obamacare
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/18/news/economy/obamacare-entrepreneurs-trump/index.html

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Small business owners need Obamacare.  I remember when Obamacare first started, my insurance agent was excited because he would finally be able to offer his employees insurance.  I'm in the same boat.  I have 5 employees that I want to make full time when I land a couple more key contracts.  I want to offer full benefits at that point,  but if Trump kills Obamacare I won't be able to do that,  and that will leave me vulnerabil to large businesses that do.  Ohhh the uncertainty.....

Entrepreneurs to Trump: Don't take away our Obamacare
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/18/news/economy/obamacare-entrepreneurs-trump/index.html

Does anyone consider that they'll like what it is replaced with better?  The fear of the unknown is powerful but too many times overblown.  Obama kept throwing curve balls at us constantly with his "You can keep your Dr." style lines of BS so I guess everyone is now a bit skittish.

Dr. Evil wrote:
Republicans have had 6 years....

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:
Republicans have had 6 years....

Yes, 6 yrs of veto threats.  That's gone, lets see how obstructionist the Liberal minority can be..........