Missouri lowers minamam wage????

[Symmetry]

Well, this is just a flame thread now.

They're ALL flame threads, dumbass.

Interesting.

[Bernie Sanders]

I am not angry and I do not smoke. PERIOD.

Are you going to give a reasonable rebuttal to even ONE of my points or will you simply blow more smoke? Again, you fail to address any of the issues that I present and offer shallow, insipid responses that indicates lack of clear thougth, a lack of any lucid analysis, and definitely a n absence of any cogent arguments.

Address the issues, refute my arguments, and stop avoiding any real thought, bernie. You fail as a debater. Period.

JP4F

What? Put the joint down and clear your head before you post.

Why so angry?

You funny. All you did was insult and play games. Move on and take a chill pill.

[jusplay4fun]

That is the 2nd time you posted that reply, Bernie. That is ALL you got? As I have already said, you have NO reasonable rebuttal to ANY of my points. You have no cogent answer to my arguments.

Now here is my NEW conclusion: you lost the debate. PERIOD.

JP4F

[jusplay4fun]

bernie,

What you perceive (incorrectly) as an insult is instead me calling you out for FAILING to offer any type of rebuttals or counter-arguments. Try to use your brain and offer at least one plausible response to what I thought about, analyzed, and posted; then I will say that you had least had a reasonable thought.

Instead, you offer insipid responses that are full of negative emotion and carry no indication of logic or intelligence. As I already said, you lost the debate due to your failure to offer any type of rebuttal.

JP4F

I am not angry and I do not smoke. PERIOD.

Are you going to give a reasonable rebuttal to even ONE of my points or will you simply blow more smoke? Again, you fail to address any of the issues that I present and offer shallow, insipid responses that indicates lack of clear thought, a lack of any lucid analysis, and definitely an absence of any cogent arguments.

Address the issues, refute my arguments, and stop avoiding any real thought, bernie. You fail as a debater. Period.

JP4F

What? Put the joint down and clear your head before you post.

Why so angry?

You funny. All you did was insult and play games. Move on and take a chill pill.

[Symmetry]

bernie,

What you perceive (incorrectly) as an insult is instead me calling you out for FAILING to offer any type of rebuttals or counter-arguments. Try to use your brain and offer at least one plausible response to what I thought about, analyzed, and posted; then I will say that you had least had a reasonable thought.

Instead, you offer insipid responses that are full of negative emotion and carry no indication of logic or intelligence. As I already said, you lost the debate due to your failure to offer any type of rebuttal.

JP4F

I am not angry and I do not smoke. PERIOD.

Are you going to give a reasonable rebuttal to even ONE of my points or will you simply blow more smoke? Again, you fail to address any of the issues that I present and offer shallow, insipid responses that indicates lack of clear thought, a lack of any lucid analysis, and definitely an absence of any cogent arguments.

Address the issues, refute my arguments, and stop avoiding any real thought, bernie. You fail as a debater. Period.

JP4F

What? Put the joint down and clear your head before you post.

Why so angry?

You funny. All you did was insult and play games. Move on and take a chill pill.

Honestly dude, you've bought into his trap. Do the right thing and back out while you still seem only a bit ridiculous.

[jusplay4fun]

Symm,

are you saying that bernie is trolling here, in this thread?

Did bernie have NO intention of a serious discussion here, on this topic? If so, I agree with you on this point, Symm.

JP4F

bernie,

What you perceive (incorrectly) as an insult is instead me calling you out for FAILING to offer any type of rebuttals or counter-arguments. Try to use your brain and offer at least one plausible response to what I thought about, analyzed, and posted; then I will say that you had least had a reasonable thought.

Instead, you offer insipid responses that are full of negative emotion and carry no indication of logic or intelligence. As I already said, you lost the debate due to your failure to offer any type of rebuttal.

JP4F

I am not angry and I do not smoke. PERIOD.

Are you going to give a reasonable rebuttal to even ONE of my points or will you simply blow more smoke? Again, you fail to address any of the issues that I present and offer shallow, insipid responses that indicates lack of clear thought, a lack of any lucid analysis, and definitely an absence of any cogent arguments.

Address the issues, refute my arguments, and stop avoiding any real thought, bernie. You fail as a debater. Period.

JP4F

What? Put the joint down and clear your head before you post.

Why so angry?

You funny. All you did was insult and play games. Move on and take a chill pill.

Honestly dude, you've bought into his trap. Do the right thing and back out while you still seem only a bit ridiculous.

[Symmetry]

You seem ridiculous, dude.

Just... I dunno- get thhings together with whatever is happening to you. There's a mistake in this post. See if you can find it.

[Dukasaur]

You seem ridiculous, dude.

Just... I dunno- get thhings together with whatever is happening to you. There's a mistake in this post. See if you can find it.

Actually, several mistaks.

1. The hyphen after "dunno" was presumably meant to be a dash. A dash in typing is normally indicated by two hypens.
2. Still with the dash/hyphen motif, there should be a space between "dunno" and the whatever-it-is.
3. Actually, "dunno" isn't even a real word.
4. There's only one 'h' in "things."

I added the word "mistaks" for good measure.

[Symmetry]

You seem ridiculous, dude.

Just... I dunno- get thhings together with whatever is happening to you. There's a mistake in this post. See if you can find it.

Actually, several mistaks.

1. The hyphen after "dunno" was presumably meant to be a dash. A dash in typing is normally indicated by two hypens.
2. Still with the dash/hyphen motif, there should be a space between "dunno" and the whatever-it-is.
3. Actually, "dunno" isn't even a real word.
4. There's only one 'h' in "things."

I added the word "mistaks" for good measure.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dunno

The rest is pure style, my friend.

[jusplay4fun]

Some of the comments by Woodruff show a cursory understanding of economics. The economy is not a linear model, or even the two dimensional pyramid I will offer soon. The economy is incredibly complex and interrelated. Everyone depends on the wants, needs, spending, and products and services and efforts offered by MANY others. Do you realize how many people are involved in getting lettuce from California's Central Valley to a grocer in New Jersey (as one small example)? If any person or truck or company has a serious problem, the lettuce can spoil before a customer in NJ can and will buy it.

Does that mean that the truck driver is the ONLY key to getting lettuce to market? No more important than the farmer or laborer or grocer or produce manager (or store clerk) at the grocery store. BUT who is the most important person? Much of that depends on your perspective. If you want to defend the truckers, because you are a teamster union member, then, of course, the truck driver is the key person.

To better understand the entire concept, consider two points, at least. One is the economic theory notion of "Marginalism," In a nutshell, here it is: water is very useful and essential for life; a diamond is (basically) coveted as a symbol and for appearance and status. One cannot drink a diamond and one can survive without diamonds (unless you are a Kardashian.) So why does a diamond costs so much more than a gallon of water? Marginalism.

The same argument can be made for customers versus the entrepreneur who starts a business. Which person is worth more?
Point #2. Which is in greater numbers and which is more difficult to replace? Who takes a greater RISK in doing their role to get a useful widget to the market for anyone, the poor included, to purchase? Would the widget be less useful if ONE poor customer, under the definition of poverty (as established by the USDA) is NOT there to buy that widget?

Which person is the one part of the chain whose role is so critical that his/her absence will mean no widget gets made, transported, distributed, sold and purchased? Looking at the numbers, the customer is the base and the entrepreneur is the apex of the pyramid (my 2d model). Does that mean the apex is the ONLY key part and customer is useless? NO..! OR does that mean that the pyramid crumbles without its customer base? Yes, of course.

Last point: it is true that the poor spend a greater PORTION or % of their disposable income/money on basics such as food and utilities. The rich have more disposable income for non-essentials, such as diamonds. BUT because the poor "put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy" does not mean they are "job creators." As I stated above, everyone plays a role in the economy. BUT to call the poor "job creators" is a real stretch and is a hyperbole, IMHO. My discussion of Marginalism is the main reason for my opinion.

BTW: that is why the US income system is a progressive tax; i.e., the rich generally pay a higher percentage of income. [And yes, the RICH get and use tax breaks (e.g., Trump and his business loss claim on his leaked tax return).] Last point: The sales tax is regressive.

JP4F

I haven't read the entire thread...I tried, but there was just too much misinformation and outright bullshit. So perhaps what I'm about to say has already been said, I don't know. But that's never stopped me before, so...

The real "job creators" are not the businessmen, not even those who start up businesses. The real job creators are the purchasers, and in particular the poor.
I hear the shrieks already, but allow me to explain.

If a man starts a business selling widgets, and hires employees to make and sell those widgets, but customers don't come to his business in enough numbers to sustain it, that only very temporarily creates any jobs at all. Therefore, the strength of job creation lies with those customers.

Now, why would I suggest that it is the poor who are at most the job creators? Because they put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy. The rich are saving...in fact, statistics say that the rich are saving a lot, through various means. The middle class is sadly moving toward the poor in this regard, as saving within the middle class is starting to become a by-gone thing, so I don't mind including them within that grouping of job creators. But it is those who are returning their income back into the economy who are the job creators.

Therefore, if you want to boost the economy, you do it through the poor (why yes, that might also mean welfare).

All of that trickle-down crap just doesn't reflect the reality. And for what it's worth, I like capitalism. I think it's the best system available for MOST situations.

[Bernie Sanders]

Some of the comments by Woodruff show a cursory understanding of economics. The economy is not a linear model, or even the two dimensional pyramid I will offer soon. The economy is incredibly complex and interrelated. Everyone depends on the wants, needs, spending, and products and services and efforts offered by MANY others. Do you realize how many people are involved in getting lettuce from California's Central Valley to a grocer in New Jersey (as one small example)? If any person or truck or company has a serious problem, the lettuce can spoil before a customer in NJ can and will buy it.

Does that mean that the truck driver is the ONLY key to getting lettuce to market? No more important than the farmer or laborer or grocer or produce manager (or store clerk) at the grocery store. BUT who is the most important person? Much of that depends on your perspective. If you want to defend the truckers, because you are a teamster union member, then, of course, the truck driver is the key person.

To better understand the entire concept, consider two points, at least. One is the economic theory notion of "Marginalism," In a nutshell, here it is: water is very useful and essential for life; a diamond is (basically) coveted as a symbol and for appearance and status. One cannot drink a diamond and one can survive without diamonds (unless you are a Kardashian.) So why does a diamond costs so much more than a gallon of water? Marginalism.

The same argument can be made for customers versus the entrepreneur who starts a business. Which person is worth more?
Point #2. Which is in greater numbers and which is more difficult to replace? Who takes a greater RISK in doing their role to get a useful widget to the market for anyone, the poor included, to purchase? Would the widget be less useful if ONE poor customer, under the definition of poverty (as established by the USDA) is NOT there to buy that widget?

Which person is the one part of the chain whose role is so critical that his/her absence will mean no widget gets made, transported, distributed, sold and purchased? Looking at the numbers, the customer is the base and the entrepreneur is the apex of the pyramid (my 2d model). Does that mean the apex is the ONLY key part and customer is useless? NO..! OR does that mean that the pyramid crumbles without its customer base? Yes, of course.

Last point: it is true that the poor spend a greater PORTION or % of their disposable income/money on basics such as food and utilities. The rich have more disposable income for non-essentials, such as diamonds. BUT because the poor "put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy" does not mean they are "job creators." As I stated above, everyone plays a role in the economy. BUT to call the poor "job creators" is a real stretch and is a hyperbole, IMHO. My discussion of Marginalism is the main reason for my opinion.

BTW: that is why the US income system is a progressive tax; i.e., the rich generally pay a higher percentage of income. [And yes, the RICH get and use tax breaks (e.g., Trump and his business loss claim on his leaked tax return).] Last point: The sales tax is regressive.

JP4F

I haven't read the entire thread...I tried, but there was just too much misinformation and outright bullshit. So perhaps what I'm about to say has already been said, I don't know. But that's never stopped me before, so...

The real "job creators" are not the businessmen, not even those who start up businesses. The real job creators are the purchasers, and in particular the poor.
I hear the shrieks already, but allow me to explain.

If a man starts a business selling widgets, and hires employees to make and sell those widgets, but customers don't come to his business in enough numbers to sustain it, that only very temporarily creates any jobs at all. Therefore, the strength of job creation lies with those customers.

Now, why would I suggest that it is the poor who are at most the job creators? Because they put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy. The rich are saving...in fact, statistics say that the rich are saving a lot, through various means. The middle class is sadly moving toward the poor in this regard, as saving within the middle class is starting to become a by-gone thing, so I don't mind including them within that grouping of job creators. But it is those who are returning their income back into the economy who are the job creators.

Therefore, if you want to boost the economy, you do it through the poor (why yes, that might also mean welfare).

All of that trickle-down crap just doesn't reflect the reality. And for what it's worth, I like capitalism. I think it's the best system available for MOST situations.

You came back???? Are you just confused where you stand on economic theory or you just like filling our valuable cyber-space with differing views to make it seem your some elitist from an Ivy League School?

[jusplay4fun]

I never left, Bernie.

I see you still resort to name calling and making insipid vapid comments that merely show your ignorance and bigotry.

JP4F

[jusplay4fun]

How's the wife, Bernie?

Washington (CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday defended his wife, Jane Sanders, amid reports of a potential federal investigation related to her time helming the now-defunct Burlington College.
Sanders declined when asked on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" to say whether or not his wife was under investigation by the FBI.
"My wife is about the most honest person I know," Sanders said.

Sanders' former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, confirmed Jane Sanders has hired lawyer Larry Robbins to represent her in the possible probe. Weaver said the FBI had not contacted either Jane or Bernie Sanders in connection to any such investigation. A person close to the senator said Sanders was represented by Rich Cassidy, a longtime lawyer for the family.
Both the FBI field office in Albany, New York and the US Attorney's Office in Vermont would not comment, and the Justice Department has not yet responded to a request for comment on the matter.
The senator's wife was the president of Burlington College from 2004-2011. The college announced its closure a year ago due to debt it had taken on from a real estate deal the school made during her tenure. CNN reviewed the loan application for the deal, which was signed by Jane Sanders. The loan application stated the college would take in millions of dollars worth of pledged donations, many of which never materialized.

[Bernie Sanders]

Some of the comments by Woodruff show a cursory understanding of economics. The economy is not a linear model, or even the two dimensional pyramid I will offer soon. The economy is incredibly complex and interrelated. Everyone depends on the wants, needs, spending, and products and services and efforts offered by MANY others. Do you realize how many people are involved in getting lettuce from California's Central Valley to a grocer in New Jersey (as one small example)? If any person or truck or company has a serious problem, the lettuce can spoil before a customer in NJ can and will buy it.

Does that mean that the truck driver is the ONLY key to getting lettuce to market? No more important than the farmer or laborer or grocer or produce manager (or store clerk) at the grocery store. BUT who is the most important person? Much of that depends on your perspective. If you want to defend the truckers, because you are a teamster union member, then, of course, the truck driver is the key person.

To better understand the entire concept, consider two points, at least. One is the economic theory notion of "Marginalism," In a nutshell, here it is: water is very useful and essential for life; a diamond is (basically) coveted as a symbol and for appearance and status. One cannot drink a diamond and one can survive without diamonds (unless you are a Kardashian.) So why does a diamond costs so much more than a gallon of water? Marginalism.

The same argument can be made for customers versus the entrepreneur who starts a business. Which person is worth more?
Point #2. Which is in greater numbers and which is more difficult to replace? Who takes a greater RISK in doing their role to get a useful widget to the market for anyone, the poor included, to purchase? Would the widget be less useful if ONE poor customer, under the definition of poverty (as established by the USDA) is NOT there to buy that widget?

Which person is the one part of the chain whose role is so critical that his/her absence will mean no widget gets made, transported, distributed, sold and purchased? Looking at the numbers, the customer is the base and the entrepreneur is the apex of the pyramid (my 2d model). Does that mean the apex is the ONLY key part and customer is useless? NO..! OR does that mean that the pyramid crumbles without its customer base? Yes, of course.

Last point: it is true that the poor spend a greater PORTION or % of their disposable income/money on basics such as food and utilities. The rich have more disposable income for non-essentials, such as diamonds. BUT because the poor "put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy" does not mean they are "job creators." As I stated above, everyone plays a role in the economy. BUT to call the poor "job creators" is a real stretch and is a hyperbole, IMHO. My discussion of Marginalism is the main reason for my opinion.

BTW: that is why the US income system is a progressive tax; i.e., the rich generally pay a higher percentage of income. [And yes, the RICH get and use tax breaks (e.g., Trump and his business loss claim on his leaked tax return).] Last point: The sales tax is regressive.

JP4F

I haven't read the entire thread...I tried, but there was just too much misinformation and outright bullshit. So perhaps what I'm about to say has already been said, I don't know. But that's never stopped me before, so...

The real "job creators" are not the businessmen, not even those who start up businesses. The real job creators are the purchasers, and in particular the poor.
I hear the shrieks already, but allow me to explain.

If a man starts a business selling widgets, and hires employees to make and sell those widgets, but customers don't come to his business in enough numbers to sustain it, that only very temporarily creates any jobs at all. Therefore, the strength of job creation lies with those customers.

Now, why would I suggest that it is the poor who are at most the job creators? Because they put the highest percentage of their income back into the economy. The rich are saving...in fact, statistics say that the rich are saving a lot, through various means. The middle class is sadly moving toward the poor in this regard, as saving within the middle class is starting to become a by-gone thing, so I don't mind including them within that grouping of job creators. But it is those who are returning their income back into the economy who are the job creators.

Therefore, if you want to boost the economy, you do it through the poor (why yes, that might also mean welfare).

All of that trickle-down crap just doesn't reflect the reality. And for what it's worth, I like capitalism. I think it's the best system available for MOST situations.

How's the wife, Bernie?

Washington (CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday defended his wife, Jane Sanders, amid reports of a potential federal investigation related to her time helming the now-defunct Burlington College.
Sanders declined when asked on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" to say whether or not his wife was under investigation by the FBI.
"My wife is about the most honest person I know," Sanders said.

Sanders' former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, confirmed Jane Sanders has hired lawyer Larry Robbins to represent her in the possible probe. Weaver said the FBI had not contacted either Jane or Bernie Sanders in connection to any such investigation. A person close to the senator said Sanders was represented by Rich Cassidy, a longtime lawyer for the family.
Both the FBI field office in Albany, New York and the US Attorney's Office in Vermont would not comment, and the Justice Department has not yet responded to a request for comment on the matter.
The senator's wife was the president of Burlington College from 2004-2011. The college announced its closure a year ago due to debt it had taken on from a real estate deal the school made during her tenure. CNN reviewed the loan application for the deal, which was signed by Jane Sanders. The loan application stated the college would take in millions of dollars worth of pledged donations, many of which never materialized.

Old news my hostile poster. Nothing here but partisan b.s.

Hey, changed the title to this thread to satisfy your elitist taste.

[Bernie Sanders]

I never left, Bernie.

I see you still resort to name calling and making insipid vapid comments that merely show your ignorance and bigotry.

JP4F

Thank GOD! you do not resort to such childish antics. A highly educated white boy like yourself would be never resort to name calling.

[jusplay4fun]

Bernie, you're an ASS. PERIOD.

JP4F

I never left, Bernie.

I see you still resort to name calling and making insipid vapid comments that merely show your ignorance and bigotry.

JP4F

Thank GOD! you do not resort to such childish antics. A highly educated white boy like yourself would be never resort to name calling.

[jusplay4fun]

Bernie,

JUS admit it; you lost this debate because:

1) you offer NO reasonable thought, knowledge, or research on economic matters;

2) you offer no actual rebuttal to my arguments, other than name calling, the cheapest and crudest attempt at a rebuttal. (The Donald is SO PROUD of how you try to imitate him.).

3) you try to bully and intimidate people, again something that The Donald would be proud that you follow his example;

4) you are an ASShole.

Conclusion, as proven already: Bernie LOST the debate, in real life vs. Hillary and now here on CC. PERIOD. Go cry to Mama, or your doll.

JP4F

That is the 2nd time you posted that reply, Bernie. That is ALL you got? As I have already said, you have NO reasonable rebuttal to ANY of my points. You have no cogent answer to my arguments.

Now here is my NEW conclusion: you lost the debate. PERIOD.

JP4F

[jusplay4fun]

Looks like this debate is OVER. No response since August 8.

Bernie did not respond to my economic arguments or explanations. He merely resorted to his only approach to life: calling others derogatory names.

By his silence and failure to offer adequate reasonable, and.or intelligent responses, Bernie did admit that:

1) Bernie an ASS; he did not even respond. CHECK.

2) He lost the debate. No credible response offered. CHECK, yes, HE LOST.

3) Bernie is stooopid; JUS to give Bernie a wee bit of his own medicine, with intentional misspelled word. CHECK.

4) Berner Sanders does not know economic issues, both this FAKE one and the REAL ONE who lost to Hillary. CHECK.

Over and done. Admit it, Bernie.

JP4F

[Bernie Sanders]

God! If anyone needs to get laid, it's you.

Let it go.

[Symmetry]

This whole thread is a sad example of people failing to say "Missouri loves companies". Nobody wins.

I mean really- come on people, there's a double pun there, WTF?

Even "Missouri loves company" works. It's right there.

[jusplay4fun]

LoL.

This whole thread is a sad example of people failing to say "Missouri loves companies". Nobody wins.

I mean really- come on people, there's a double pun there, WTF?

Even "Missouri loves company" works. It's right there.

[jusplay4fun]

WoW...! Bernie has a NEW reBUTTal. How long did it take for Bernie to think of THAT simple and inane and silly one? about one week.....SAD.

Yes, you lost the debate. I see no need to respond further. But for Bernie, since he is so MISERABLE ('cos he can't get laid??) he has to respond to my economic arguments with a silly and stoooopid attempt at refutation. Good Try Bernie, NOT even close. Very SIMPLY, you are PATHETIC with your analysis and your attempts at rebuttal.

OVER. You LOST, on so many levels.

JP

God! If anyone needs to get laid, it's you.

Let it go.

[Dukasaur]

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[jusplay4fun]

Saint Louis love Missouri, in Misery.

Bernie does not love and it is apparent that he is unloved, NOW and as a child. He tried to love and claim to be my grandpa, but I did not fall into his trap. The trap was so poorly set that I saw it a MILE away. Try again, Bernie, to offer some coherent response. Don't be a complete IDIOT.

AND YOU ARE NOT MY grandFATHER!!



JP4F

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[Bernie Sanders]

Saint Louis love Missouri, in Misery.

Bernie does not love and it is apparent that he is unloved, NOW and as a child. He tried to love and claim to be my grandpa, but I did not fall into his trap. The trap was so poorly set that I saw it a MILE away. Try again, Bernie, to offer some coherent response. Don't be a complete IDIOT.

AND YOU ARE NOT MY grandFATHER!!



JP4F

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Only your Grandma knows who's your real Grandpa is and even Grandma is not 100℅ sure.

Get over the fact that you came from a long line of promiscuous women. Don't be ashamed that they like having multiple partners through the years and especially at the same time. You should follow their trail of sexual depravities. It would do you good, instead of you coming off as some adolescent guilty of playing with himself.

Spread your wings young man and find yourself. Or continue looking like some nerd acting like he's a man of the world, ROTFLMAO!