Who can truthfully say Biden’s policies have helped them? I can’t.
I notice the liberals always have crocodile tears over Trump and start a laundry list of things they feel he did wrong but can never articulate how any of those things impacted them.
I notice the liberals always have crocodile tears over Trump and start a laundry list of things they feel he did wrong but can never articulate how any of those things impacted them.
I spent all of 2020 and most of 2021 indoors or masked everywhere else due to Trump’s mismanagement of COVID-19. I strongly suspect that wasn’t an experience limited to me. Of course, millions of Americans can’t answer your question at all because they died of COVID-19.
Of course the other thing Trump did that personally affected me was that he raised my taxes, so thanks for that!
You are blaming Trump for the response the whole world took. Had you lived in France, you would have had the same thing.
Had you lived in Sweden, you would not have been burdened with masks, but in the large majority of countries, your experience would have been the same.
You are blaming Trump for the response the whole world took.
No, I’m blaming Trump for the response of the Federal government he was notionally the leader of. I say “notionally”, of course, since the official position of the White House during his administration was that Trump couldn’t and didn’t speak for his own administration, since he was drug-addled and quite literally asleep at the wheel most days (when he wasn’t taking 3 and 4 day weekends, of course.)
You’re free to make excuses for this loser over and over again, but it’s simply a matter of civic fact that Trump, as President of the United States, was the head of both the FDA and the CDC and all the other agencies to boot.
Had you lived in Sweden, you would not have been burdened with masks
Yes, but I didn’t live in Sweden. I lived in the United States, the country Trump was supposedly the President of.
since he was drug-addled Trump doesn’t do drugs. He doesn’t drink or smoke. He is a tee totaler.
I lived in the United States, the country Trump was supposedly the President of.
Had you lived in a red state, you wouldn’t have had to wear a mask all the time. Maybe you need to talk to your governor or local health department since they made those decisions.
Had you lived in a red state, you wouldn’t have had to wear a mask all the time.
I didn’t have to wear a mask at any time in my state, as far as I was aware. The travel “restrictions” were limited to “stay inside unless you’re going somewhere, or going nowhere”, which fully encompasses all of the reasons a person might leave their home so in practice was no restriction whatsoever. I had a C category public health exemption to travel restrictions for work, but then we all started working from home anyway and in any case there was literally zero attempts at enforcement of any travel restriction, anywhere in the US.
It’s not the presence of the masks that I care about. It’s the presence of the disease. That’s where Trump completely, utterly failed. You should watch the documentary “Totally Under Control” if you’d like to know more about how. Scott Gottleib’s book on it is pretty good, too.
Outside of Island nations, who do you think contained COVID? I am not aware of any country without a unique situation that contained COVID.
Sure, China claims they contained it but they were welding people in their homes. That isn’t a country in which I would want to live.
Sweden did exceptionally well but they once again are unique. They had Anders Tegnell who stuck to the plan, while you may not agree with it, their culture supported his plan.
I think we would have had a better plan had they ditched Fauci earlier and got someone who wasn’t a compulsive liar.
Outside of Island nations, who do you think contained COVID? I am not aware of any country without a unique situation that contained COVID.
We talked about this. You’re acting like COVID was somehow uniquely infectious, but Wuhan-1 actually had lower infectivity, by about half, than more serious illnesses that were prevented from becoming pandemics by a far more competent public health response.
I know you want to act like Trump just got dealt a bad hand but it’s the opposite of that. He was dealt one potential epidemic - Biden’s been VP or P for at least five - and the virus he was dealt is less infectious than respiratory viruses generally are. It’s just that he was so incompetent that his actions turned a regional epidemic into a global pandemic. Did that happen everywhere in the world? Yes, simply as a function of how badly Trump performed, here.
You’re acting like COVID was somehow uniquely infectious, but Wuhan-1 actually had lower infectivity, by about half, than more serious illnesses that were prevented from becoming pandemics by a far more competent public health response.
You’re the first person to claim that COVID was not unique.
Specifically which illness are you talking about? COVID was highly infectious when compared to most other disease. It had a much longer incubation period, which you don’t seem to realize makes a large difference in spreading a disease. It is why Ebola doesn’t have large outbreaks, but the flu does.
What seems to be true is you have TDS and you will try to force the narrative to blame Trump. I find that Partisan and hackery at best. At worst, it is a complete lack of morals and ethics.
You’re the first person to claim that COVID was not unique.
It’s inherently not an unusual infection in terms of its epidemiological properties, is the point. Generally it’s a pretty big deal when a novel virus spreads in humans; nobody’s immune-competent to it (how can they be, it’s new) so we’re all in for a bad time.
But SARS-1 and MERS were novel, too.
Specifically which illness are you talking about?
SARS-1, MERS, H1N1 flu, H2N2 flu, H5N1 flu. Zika probably wasn’t ever going to be a pandemic because it’s arthropod-vectored and mosquitos can’t live everywhere. Ebola and Nipah virus aren’t airborne, generally, but they have particular etiologies that make them credible pandemic threats.
COVID was highly infectious when compared to most other disease.
Again, not in the original variant. Wuhan-1 has an R0 of only 1.5-1.8. That’s less than Ebola, that’s less than monkeypox, that’s less than SARS-1, and it’s an order of magnitude less than measles, mumps, and varicella.
Subsequent COVID-19 variants gained substantially higher R0 values as the virus adapted to what had become its primary reservoir (humans) but that’s not something that had to happen; that was the result of the utterly incompetent public health response led by Donald Trump.
What seems to be true is you have TDS and you will try to force the narrative to blame Trump.
Yes, conservatives often struggle to recollect who the actual President was between 2020-2021. Sounds like maybe you have some COVID-19-related brain damage and should get that checked out.
Yes, of course Ebola has a lower R0 than recent COVID; respiratory infections tend to have higher R0. It’s easier to infect others when you can do it through shared air. As COVID variants became more infectious the R0 increased. But Ebola’s R0 is 1.9 compared to Wuhan-1’s 1.8.
But COVID’s R0 was lower than other respiratory infections. My post isn’t that complicated; there’s really zero reason you should have this much trouble following it. My god, man.
m not the one who keeps making things up that I have to correct.
I’m correcting you in nearly every post. Your “corrections” are all things you’re imagining me saying.
Trump was one of the first of the western leaders to close borders with China. He was called racist for it. Do you not remember what happened? It was like 2 years ago.
Trump was one of the first of the western leaders to close borders with China.
He didn’t ever close the border with China, though. Flights from China continued to bring people into the US throughout the Trump administration and had not actually ever stopped.
It’s TDS. We can talk about what made COVID unique but crashfrog is the only expert who doesn’t think it’s unique.
What made COVID unique was that most people were asymptomatic. Meaning they didn’t show symptoms. Yet, they could spread the infection. On average it took 5-30 days for the infection to show signs. That is unique as well.
What that means when trying to contain an outbreak is that it’s very difficult to contain it. By the time China was admitting there was an issue, it had already spread across the world. Even if Trump had isolated every border in the United States, it was already here and would have spread.
This is nothing more than TDS in full force and ignoring the scientific literature.
What is often ignored is COVID wasn’t that deadly. That is another reason why it spread so quickly. If COVID had the mortality rate of Ebola, we wouldn’t have asked people to local down. they would have done it naturally.
The lockdown also was done too early and poorly planned. This was Fauci blowing his load way too early as he was drunk with power.
If we had someone like Anders in Sweden, we would have done much better. The man knows his stuff, speaks honestly and will admit his mistakes. The public loved him. Osterholm would have been a better choice as well. He spoke from knowledge and factually.
Who can truthfully say Biden’s policies have helped them?
If we mistakenly believe inflation is caused by the president, then my savings are earning more interest than ever as a direct result of his policies.
His passage of the infiltration reduction act makes wanting a solar system much more attractive. I haven’t bought a house yet (whose prices are finally falling), but when I do, I’m getting that federal rebate ASAP on a solar system.
He put $1400 back into our pockets at the beginning of his administration so we could more easily weather the pandemic financially. This has been blamed for causing inflation, but given record profits across various industries and boasts of “price taking”, I’m not buying it.
Also, not affecting me personally, but he did more to reduce child poverty than any other president in the last 50 years with the passage of the American Rescue Plan. Reducing child poverty is objectively a good thing.
If we mistakenly believe inflation is caused by the president,
In this case it was at least partially caused by his policies.
He put $1400 back into our pockets at the beginning of his administration so we could more easily weather the pandemic financially. I didn’t get that. That is also what caused inflation. When you create money, it drives inflation.
Child poverty more than doubles — a year after hitting record low, Census data shows
Of course that happened. (Just throwing out numbers to make a point) If child poverty started at 100,000 kids in poverty, dropped to 30,000 kids, caused by American Rescue Plan, and then it rose to 60,000 when the rescue plan expired, then the above article headline is true.
Still, fewer kids in poverty, which is what matters.
Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
The democrats have no real goal is end poverty. Every time they have tried, they’ve made it worse or put us in further debt, which drives inflation. The solution isn’t taking money from me and giving it to someone else. The solution is to develop skills and grow the jobs available to people. Sometimes you need to have the tough love conversation that if you want to make more, you have to word harder and make sacrafices.
I think you have the cause of political support backwards. The poor support Democrats because Republicans want to make the rich richer which comes at the cost of everyone else, not because Democrats sustain poverty.
And wealth distribution is an effective solution to poverty, economically. Underpaying workers and encouraging them to sign up for food stamps for higher profits, however. And yet, Walmart gets tax cuts and provides jobs to actively sustain poverty in the way you think Democrats do.
The Democrats have them hooked on social programs and blaming the rich for their woes. Elon is not rich because someone else is poor. It is a common trope the Democrats throw out that sounds good, but is false.
I have no interest in wealth distribution. If you want to make more, learn a skill that makes you more available. Taking it from me and giving it to someone else isn’t the way to do it.
Yet the Democrats have never done anything to correct Walmart’s behavior.
The entire economy is a zero sum game. If I have 100% of the money supply, that necessarily means you have 0%. If we change the amount of people involved in the economy and the distribution, the sum of the proportions of the supply of money will still add up to 100%. So, actually, yes, Elon being as rich as he is necessarily makes others poorer. That is why the top 1% having trilions matters: it’s money that isn’t in other people’s pockets.
I have no interest in wealth distribution. If you want to make more, learn a skill that makes you more available.
Additionally, I think it was you that mentioned physical therapists are basically required to be a PhD in PT just to do a job that doesn’t even pay all that much!
Personal human capital investment doesn’t necessarily lead to a reduction in poverty.
Taking it from me and giving it to someone else isn’t the way to do it.
Sure! Take it from top 10 U.S. billionaires. We can start and end there. Redistribute their wealth to everyone else, even other billionaires because why not. If you’re correct, it won’t matter: they have skills that make them more available and command a higher rate of remuneration. If you’re wrong, then…we’re down 10 less egotistical billionaires. Win-win.
They don’t have a PhD. They have a doctorate in physical therapy. PhD is a research degree. Not the same thing thing.
The government continually prints more money making each dollar worth less. As such Elons billions is from other rich people who have invested. It didn’t come out of a poor persons pocket.
That’s why Elon being rich doesn’t impact what you have. What impacts what you have is what do you do with your money.
The entire economy is a zero sum game. If I have 100% of the money supply, that necessarily means you have 0%.
That’s only if you assume that the only way the economy works is solely by money. What’s important is that value isn’t a zero sum game. It doesn’t matter if you have 100% of the money. People will just use some other means of exchange, and your money will be worthless. Because regardless of your money, I have things people value, and people have things that I value. Hell, we could literally just make a new currency that entirely replaces the now valueless piles of money you have. And since our currency isn’t even backed with anything, it’s not even like you can exchange it for something actually worthwhile like gold.
You didn’t mind a man openly calling veteran soldiers chumps and dead soldiers buried in arlington idiots running the govt? Along with all the other rhetoric. As long as groceries are cheap and you aren’t the demographic isn’t being threatened then who gives a shit about everyone else right?
That is a rumor. I personally don’t believe it’s true. I get liberals love hearsay but it doesn’t impress me. Where has Trump said that with actual proof? Not we heard it from someone who heard it from someone or some anonymous source.
It is well-known Trump did things for veterans before he became President.
What Demographic was impacted by Trump? Be specific. I can’t think of one group that was unfairly impacted by any of his policies.
In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump’s alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members “losers” and “suckers.”
The man only does anything if it’s good for him. He does not have an altruistic bone in his body. Look at his rally speeches. All the man does is complain about people being mean and unfair to him, and then say he’s going to make it better. He called Americans vermin and scum. Then said we need to rid the country of this “vermin.” I can tell you with certainty that every American citizen is in fact a human being. Even if they disagree with Trump.
And no, that is not the same as calling someone stupid, idiot, or worse. It is likening someone to something so detestable and revolting that it is somehow less than human, vile.
Words of our public figures matter. Imagine if Joe Biden or Obama said that about Conservatives. I can only imagine the outcry. He is a dangerous insidious selfish man who has no thought for anyone who can’t serve a purpose for him personally.
Two things, primarily: I spent all of 2020 and most of 2021 sheltering-in-place as a result of Trump’s incompetence at managing COVID-19; and he raised my taxes.
In 2016 I voted against him as one of his campaign promises was to terminate FSMA, the Food Safety Modernization Act, which funds my work. (That’s not solely why, of course there was everything else, but the thing that affected me was his promise to make me lose my job. Of course he had no more competence in following through with that promise than he did any of the others, it turned out.)
I have no desire to pay more in taxes but I also accept it’s the cost of civilized society.
Most liberals are fairly dumb as they think Trump’s “tax cuts” impacted the poor the most. The SALT tax cap was a smart move on Trump’s part where it was a hidden tax on the rich. That is what nailed my taxes hard, but as a conservative, my state taxes shouldn’t be a tax write-off for my federal taxes. Each coffer needs filling exclusive of the other.
As I said, I am not overly partisan. You have to look at the polices and view them as good or bad, without looking at the party.
I have no desire to pay more in taxes but I also accept it’s the cost of civilized society.
If the Trump tax increases had coincided with an increase in public services, that would have been one thing. But they coincided with lower taxes on richer business owners, so I was opposed. I don’t see why lower taxes on rich assholes should be my burden to bear but then I’m not Paul Ryan.
The SALT tax cap was a smart move on Trump’s part where it was a hidden tax on the rich.
I mean it wasn’t very hidden, and it wasn’t on the “rich”, it was on me.
That is what nailed my taxes hard, but as a conservative, my state taxes shouldn’t be a tax write-off for my federal taxes.
Of course they should be. Don’t be absurd.
Each coffer needs filling exclusive of the other.
But they aren’t “exclusive.” States receive large portions of their operating funding from Federal grants, but with the SALT cap, the state gets two bites at my income. That’s unjust and something conservatives used to say they care about. Of course, it was always lies, wasn’t it?
(1) Section 164(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) generally allows a deduction for certain taxes for the taxable year within which paid or accrued, including: (i) State and local, and foreign, real property taxes
SALT is tied back to income taxes and deductions. If you don’t understand taxes, then ask questions instead of pretending and just looking foolish. Claiming property taxes are not part of SALT is easily disprovable and was a huge debate when it happened.
Previously you got to deduct as much property tax as you had. In a blue state that can be significant because they just can’t stop taxing you.
Trump put a limit of 10K of SALT. While income tax is part of SALT it isn’t everything. The property tax is what caused a significant tax increase for the rich.
I have now determined you don’t have an expensive home or have much income, otherwise you would have instantly known what I was talking about since it was all over the news and people in blue states were angry as hell.
SALT shouldn’t even be a deduction on federal taxes. You need to pay both groups. Otherwise it gives blue states the ability to dodge federal taxes.
Yes, it’s the Federal deduction of state income tax paid. No, that isn’t correct.The cite I gave you explains it. Income tax is just one portion of it.
What are you still confused about, here?
I am not the one confused. Even through I have cited it twice, you still can’t grasp it’s more than income tax. How about you cite where it’s only income tax.
Yes! As a result, my Federal income tax liability fucking increased!
As it should have. You should be happy to pay more taxes.
You’re incredibly confused. You believe I’m talking about property tax, but I’m talking about income tax.
As it should have.
No, it shouldn’t have. A US state shouldn’t be permitted to tax the same income twice. Each jurisdiction justly gets one bite of the apple; deduction of state taxes prevents the state from biting twice (once when you pay them, and again when they receive Federal grants.)
You should be happy to pay more taxes.
No, I vote for candidates who lower my taxes, so that I have more money.
No, it shouldn’t have. A US state shouldn’t be permitted to tax the same income twice. Each jurisdiction justly gets one bite of the apple; deduction of state taxes prevents the state from biting twice (once when you pay them, and again when they receive Federal grants.)
I disagree. If you choose to live in a high tax state, that is your choice. It shouldn’t impact the funding of the federal government. This was always a bad decision.
No, I vote for candidates who lower my taxes, so that I have more money.
If you choose to live in a high tax state, that is your choice.
If you choose to live in a state that receives a substantial portion of its operating funds from Federal grants, that’s your choice. It’s not my obligation to fund your lifestyle through double state taxation.
I’d favor an end to SALT deductions if we also ended all Federal grants to states. Agree? Oh, but you probably live in Florida, a state funded largely by placing a burden on all other Americans.
You don’t vote Republican.
I do and have. But why would I continue to, when they raised my taxes and insist on lionizing incompetent losers like Trump? Joe Biden wins. Why wouldn’t I follow the winner?
If you choose to live in a state that receives a substantial portion of its operating funds from Federal grants, that’s your choice. It’s not my obligation to fund your lifestyle through double state taxation.
What state do you think operates primarily from grants? I am not aware of any.
Oh, but you probably live in Florida
Look at my name. I live in Oregon. It’s not that hard to figure out.
There’s 50 US states that each receive a different portion of their operating budgets from Federal grants. I’m not going to be able to comprehensively describe the distribution of grant funding in a single phrase in one sentence. If you’re interested in this topic you’re free to do your own homework.
Add comment