Dems Commit Political Suicide

[oreo]

Before I get to the embarrassment of the nasty, bitter State of the Union display by the Democratic Party, let me lead with great news.

First, the jobs front. Wednesday morning saw the release of ADP/Moody’s Analytics private payrolls report. New job creation exploded once again under President Trump. Businesses added 234,000 jobs in January versus an expected 185,000. Manufacturing added 12,000 jobs and construction 9,000 new jobs - in a traditionally slow month. WOW.

Secondly, the numbers from Trump’s State of the Union. Fox News had the biggest audience for a State of the Union in the history of cable news. The old record of 6.5 million viewers was smashed by smithereens by Trump with an astonishing 11.7 million viewers. It was also the highest rated presidential address of any kind in the history of cable news.

Now to the reaction from viewers. CBS took an instant YouGov poll. Here are the amazing results.

97 percent of Republican viewers liked Trump’s speech.

72 percent of independents liked it.

Amazingly, 43 percent of Democrats liked it.

Overall 75 percent of Americans approved of the speech. And a shocking 8 out of 10 felt President Trump was trying to unite the nation, rather than divide it. Two-thirds reported the speech made them feel proud.

Which means anyone who isn’t a bitter, nasty, arrogant, hateful, Kool-Aid drinking socialist loved what they saw. Unfortunately, that leaves the entire Democrat Congress.

That’s why I report the Democratic Party committed political suicide on Tuesday night. Their response to Trump’s speech was out of bounds. It wasn’t normal. It was hateful. It was bizarre. Actually, in a word, it was “foreign.” The Democratic Party is now a foreign party in their own country. They no longer have any understanding of what people born in America think or feel.

So apparently you and 3 other people actually watched it---

 

[Spare_change]

Before I get to the embarrassment of the nasty, bitter State of the Union display by the Democratic Party, let me lead with great news.

First, the jobs front. Wednesday morning saw the release of ADP/Moody’s Analytics private payrolls report. New job creation exploded once again under President Trump. Businesses added 234,000 jobs in January versus an expected 185,000. Manufacturing added 12,000 jobs and construction 9,000 new jobs - in a traditionally slow month. WOW.

Secondly, the numbers from Trump’s State of the Union. Fox News had the biggest audience for a State of the Union in the history of cable news. The old record of 6.5 million viewers was smashed by smithereens by Trump with an astonishing 11.7 million viewers. It was also the highest rated presidential address of any kind in the history of cable news.

Now to the reaction from viewers. CBS took an instant YouGov poll. Here are the amazing results.

97 percent of Republican viewers liked Trump’s speech.

72 percent of independents liked it.

Amazingly, 43 percent of Democrats liked it.

Overall 75 percent of Americans approved of the speech. And a shocking 8 out of 10 felt President Trump was trying to unite the nation, rather than divide it. Two-thirds reported the speech made them feel proud.

Which means anyone who isn’t a bitter, nasty, arrogant, hateful, Kool-Aid drinking socialist loved what they saw. Unfortunately, that leaves the entire Democrat Congress.

That’s why I report the Democratic Party committed political suicide on Tuesday night. Their response to Trump’s speech was out of bounds. It wasn’t normal. It was hateful. It was bizarre. Actually, in a word, it was “foreign.” The Democratic Party is now a foreign party in their own country. They no longer have any understanding of what people born in America think or feel.

So apparently you and 3 other people actually watched it---

Trump's first State of the Union draws 46 million viewers

Actually, me and 46 million other people watched Democrats make absolute fools of themselves.

 

[GWV5903]

does it hurt to be that delusional?

Does it hurt to be so irrelevant?

 

[OnePercenter]

I do know the answer, so do you, but by stating the answer you'll admit you've been fooled by Trumpchange.

No - you don't know the answer. You just THINK you know the answer.

Grow up. You sound like my mother-in-law.

Almost every job created today in this country that doesn't require a certification/licensing/degree doesn't pay a living wage.

Is that right?

Tell me ... what do you consider a "living wage"? Just give me a dollars and cents estimate.

Living Wage Calculator

Find your neighborhood and add 25% to the number to cover rent.

Since housing was already included, you don't need to add 25% ... but nice try to pad the numbers.

But, I looked at my county (Colorado Springs area) - 2 adults, 2 children - both working - (1 working - $25.67) - $12.84 each --- given that minimum wage is $10.30/hour --- doesn't sound so hard. (A new hire at the local grocery store starts out at $13.40 per hour)

But, you will notice poverty wage is $5.50/hour per person .... As you can see, unskilled labor can exist very nicely, providing they both work.

But, to take on the larger issue ---- given that "living wage" and "poverty wage" are proportional the average wage, you will ALWAYS have somebody in the "poverty" category. Short of socialism (in its purest form), you cannot eliminate poverty. As soon as you move everybody up to "living wage", it becomes the new "poverty wage".

Your argument makes absolutely no economic sense.

Housing is included, but rent is not.

 

[The Original Tree]

The OP meant you are irrelevant.

Of Course Trump Is Lying About His State of the Union Ratings

Irrelevant.

then why did you put the numbers in your post if they are irrelevant?

 

[Spare_change]

No - you don't know the answer. You just THINK you know the answer.

Grow up. You sound like my mother-in-law.

Almost every job created today in this country that doesn't require a certification/licensing/degree doesn't pay a living wage.

Is that right?

Tell me ... what do you consider a "living wage"? Just give me a dollars and cents estimate.

Living Wage Calculator

Find your neighborhood and add 25% to the number to cover rent.

Since housing was already included, you don't need to add 25% ... but nice try to pad the numbers.

But, I looked at my county (Colorado Springs area) - 2 adults, 2 children - both working - (1 working - $25.67) - $12.84 each --- given that minimum wage is $10.30/hour --- doesn't sound so hard. (A new hire at the local grocery store starts out at $13.40 per hour)

But, you will notice poverty wage is $5.50/hour per person .... As you can see, unskilled labor can exist very nicely, providing they both work.

But, to take on the larger issue ---- given that "living wage" and "poverty wage" are proportional the average wage, you will ALWAYS have somebody in the "poverty" category. Short of socialism (in its purest form), you cannot eliminate poverty. As soon as you move everybody up to "living wage", it becomes the new "poverty wage".

Your argument makes absolutely no economic sense.

Housing is included, but rent is not.

THAT is your response??

I use YOUR data to prove you're wrong --- and THAT is the best you can do?

 

[OnePercenter]

Almost every job created today in this country that doesn't require a certification/licensing/degree doesn't pay a living wage.

Is that right?

Tell me ... what do you consider a "living wage"? Just give me a dollars and cents estimate.

Living Wage Calculator

Find your neighborhood and add 25% to the number to cover rent.

Since housing was already included, you don't need to add 25% ... but nice try to pad the numbers.

But, I looked at my county (Colorado Springs area) - 2 adults, 2 children - both working - (1 working - $25.67) - $12.84 each --- given that minimum wage is $10.30/hour --- doesn't sound so hard. (A new hire at the local grocery store starts out at $13.40 per hour)

But, you will notice poverty wage is $5.50/hour per person .... As you can see, unskilled labor can exist very nicely, providing they both work.

But, to take on the larger issue ---- given that "living wage" and "poverty wage" are proportional the average wage, you will ALWAYS have somebody in the "poverty" category. Short of socialism (in its purest form), you cannot eliminate poverty. As soon as you move everybody up to "living wage", it becomes the new "poverty wage".

Your argument makes absolutely no economic sense.

Housing is included, but rent is not.

THAT is your response??

I use YOUR data to prove you're wrong --- and THAT is the best you can do?

You didn't prove anything. Rent is not included in calculations, mortgage is.

 

[Spare_change]

Is that right?

Tell me ... what do you consider a "living wage"? Just give me a dollars and cents estimate.

Living Wage Calculator

Find your neighborhood and add 25% to the number to cover rent.

Since housing was already included, you don't need to add 25% ... but nice try to pad the numbers.

But, I looked at my county (Colorado Springs area) - 2 adults, 2 children - both working - (1 working - $25.67) - $12.84 each --- given that minimum wage is $10.30/hour --- doesn't sound so hard. (A new hire at the local grocery store starts out at $13.40 per hour)

But, you will notice poverty wage is $5.50/hour per person .... As you can see, unskilled labor can exist very nicely, providing they both work.

But, to take on the larger issue ---- given that "living wage" and "poverty wage" are proportional the average wage, you will ALWAYS have somebody in the "poverty" category. Short of socialism (in its purest form), you cannot eliminate poverty. As soon as you move everybody up to "living wage", it becomes the new "poverty wage".

Your argument makes absolutely no economic sense.

Housing is included, but rent is not.

THAT is your response??

I use YOUR data to prove you're wrong --- and THAT is the best you can do?

You didn't prove anything. Rent is not included in calculations, mortgage is.

I was hardly addressing that --- it was, at best, an aside.

I was addressing your "impression" that people can't make a living wage under the current pay structures. You were wrong - couples who making minimum wage can do it. It seems to undermine the whole premise of your argument.

 

[OnePercenter]

Living Wage Calculator

Find your neighborhood and add 25% to the number to cover rent.

Since housing was already included, you don't need to add 25% ... but nice try to pad the numbers.

But, I looked at my county (Colorado Springs area) - 2 adults, 2 children - both working - (1 working - $25.67) - $12.84 each --- given that minimum wage is $10.30/hour --- doesn't sound so hard. (A new hire at the local grocery store starts out at $13.40 per hour)

But, you will notice poverty wage is $5.50/hour per person .... As you can see, unskilled labor can exist very nicely, providing they both work.

But, to take on the larger issue ---- given that "living wage" and "poverty wage" are proportional the average wage, you will ALWAYS have somebody in the "poverty" category. Short of socialism (in its purest form), you cannot eliminate poverty. As soon as you move everybody up to "living wage", it becomes the new "poverty wage".

Your argument makes absolutely no economic sense.

Housing is included, but rent is not.

THAT is your response??

I use YOUR data to prove you're wrong --- and THAT is the best you can do?

You didn't prove anything. Rent is not included in calculations, mortgage is.

I was hardly addressing that --- it was, at best, an aside.

I was addressing your "impression" that people can't make a living wage under the current pay structures. You were wrong - couples who making minimum wage can do it. It seems to undermine the whole premise of your argument.

Seven plus million Americans have to work a second and third job to make ends meet. That's hardly an impression.

Quit bashing the American worker.

 

[Spare_change]

Since housing was already included, you don't need to add 25% ... but nice try to pad the numbers.

But, I looked at my county (Colorado Springs area) - 2 adults, 2 children - both working - (1 working - $25.67) - $12.84 each --- given that minimum wage is $10.30/hour --- doesn't sound so hard. (A new hire at the local grocery store starts out at $13.40 per hour)

But, you will notice poverty wage is $5.50/hour per person .... As you can see, unskilled labor can exist very nicely, providing they both work.

But, to take on the larger issue ---- given that "living wage" and "poverty wage" are proportional the average wage, you will ALWAYS have somebody in the "poverty" category. Short of socialism (in its purest form), you cannot eliminate poverty. As soon as you move everybody up to "living wage", it becomes the new "poverty wage".

Your argument makes absolutely no economic sense.

Housing is included, but rent is not.

THAT is your response??

I use YOUR data to prove you're wrong --- and THAT is the best you can do?

You didn't prove anything. Rent is not included in calculations, mortgage is.

I was hardly addressing that --- it was, at best, an aside.

I was addressing your "impression" that people can't make a living wage under the current pay structures. You were wrong - couples who making minimum wage can do it. It seems to undermine the whole premise of your argument.

Seven plus million Americans have to work a second and third job to make ends meet. That's hardly an impression.

Quit bashing the American worker.

7 out of 10 Americans have to work a second and third job --- not to make ends meet, but to support a lifestyle inappropriate for their baseline salary. That's not bad - in fact, it's how the American dream works - but you make it sound like life or death. Last time I checked, having two cars and a bid tv weren't life or death.

 

[Spare_change]

Housing is included, but rent is not.

THAT is your response??

I use YOUR data to prove you're wrong --- and THAT is the best you can do?

You didn't prove anything. Rent is not included in calculations, mortgage is.

I was hardly addressing that --- it was, at best, an aside.

I was addressing your "impression" that people can't make a living wage under the current pay structures. You were wrong - couples who making minimum wage can do it. It seems to undermine the whole premise of your argument.

Seven plus million Americans have to work a second and third job to make ends meet. That's hardly an impression.

Quit bashing the American worker.

7 million Americans have to work a second and third job --- not to make ends meet, but to support a lifestyle inappropriate for their baseline salary. That's not bad - in fact, it's how the American dream works - but you make it sound like life or death. Last time I checked, having two cars and a bid tv weren't life or death.

Maybe you forgot ---- that's how you get ahead today - work your ass off and move up the ladder.

The "living wage" statistics you so blithely quote don't justify your concern.