Yes, a bunch of idiot rubes are easily distracted by an exciting tweet, while serious policy is made without their attention.
Rand Paul supports adding to the national debt if it also means slashing the tax rate for corporate America. If it means paying for health care for ailing 9/11 first responders? That, the Republican from Kentucky has decided, is when enough if enough.
On Wednesday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) asked the Senate for unanimous consent to reauthorize the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, which offers compensation to 9/11 survivors and first responders who have filed claims relating to various health problems they have experienced as a result of the attacks. Paul objected, citing the the rising national deficit and saying the spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere.
“It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in this country,” he said. “We have a $22 trillion debt. We’re adding debt at about $1 trillion a year. Therefore, any new spending that we are approaching, any new program that is going to have the longevity of 70 or 80 years should be offset by cutting spending that is less valuable. We should at least be having this debate.”
Paul’s objection forces the Senate to go through more procedural steps and votes to pass the compensation bill, but it appears the measure will still ultimately pass. A statement from Paul’s staff said his plan is not ultimately to block the aid, but to make sure it’s offset by spending cuts elsewhere.
“Senator Paul is not blocking anything. He is simply seeking to pay for it. As with any bill, Senator Paul always believes it needs to be paid for. Senator Paul is simply offering an amendment, which other senators support, to pay for this legislation,” the statement read.
In 2017, Paul voted in favor of Trump’s tax bill, which disproportionately benefitted the wealthiest Americans and cut the corporate tax rate nearly in half, from 35% to 21%. The Congressional Budget Office projects that bill will add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over a decade.
So, anything new?L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:58 pmRand Paul is truly a contemptible sleazeball, an exemplary US Republican. H
The Fed developed a data set that throws wealth disparities into high relief.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... sloganeers
America is for the rich: An issue for the challengers. Yes, America is wealthier than ever, especially if you are in the top 10% of households. The Fed found that the top 1% of American households held wealth of $32.5 trillion. That works out to be an average household asset value of about $25 million each. The rest of the top 10% (90th to 99th wealth percentiles) held total wealth of $42.8 trillion. Add the top 1% to this group and we get a total of $75.3 trillion, with an average household wealth of $5.8 million. To be sure, this is an average and is skewed by the enormous wealth of those at the very top; the median, or midpoint, would be lower.
The next 40% (50th to 90th percentiles) has total assets of $35.3 trillion. The 63.8 million households in the top half of America have average household total wealth of $1.72 million apiece. Note this does not include liabilities such as mortgages, student loans, consumer credit, which offsets some of this.
Where things get interesting is when we look at the bottom 50% of households in America by wealth. They own total assets of $6.86 trillion. That reflects wealth (before liabilities) of a mere $107,523 per household.
Let’s dig a bit deeper: The top decile of America holds almost about 70% of the national wealth -- 31% is held by the top 1%, while the rest of the top 10% holds about 39%.
And the bottom half’s share? About 1.3%.
Although the wealthy own most of the assets, the less well-off hold a disproportionate share of the liabilities. The top 10% have a relatively modest amount of debt ($633 billion for the top 1%, and the rest of the top 10% has $2.8 trillion). Meanwhile, the bottom 50% has $5.6 trillion in liabilities; the group between the top decile and the bottom half has more than $6 trillion in liabilities. In other words, the bottom 90% has total liabilities of almost $12 trillion.
The conclusion here is that the wealthy own most of the assets, while the less wealthy are stuck with most of the liabilities.
It's really quite simple. Open a competing store, treat the staff better, and with your better staff, make a better living for everyone.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:15 pmThis is something I've been running into for years. I don't know how to crack it either.
Thank you Dr Pangloss...Cunt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:42 pmIt's really quite simple. Open a competing store, treat the staff better, and with your better staff, make a better living for everyone.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:15 pmThis is something I've been running into for years. I don't know how to crack it either.
I'm not a doctor, and don't know any 'Pangloss'...JimC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:26 amThank you Dr Pangloss...Cunt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:42 pmIt's really quite simple. Open a competing store, treat the staff better, and with your better staff, make a better living for everyone.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:15 pmThis is something I've been running into for years. I don't know how to crack it either.
Why would I bother? The eyeroll communicates all I needed
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
