HappyGilmore's comments

« First    « Previous    Comments 663 - 702 of 702    Last »

  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 29, 2:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
Believing what a spoiled 17 year old brat, who is clueless on life, is saying to the world,

Will the Liberals EVER get a clue?


Liberals listen and verify by checking the facts. In this case, Rubio has taken a great deal of $$ from the NRA and his voting record seems to indicate this cash bought his loyalty.

The real clueless ones are the guys who believe whatever nonsense they read on redstate or bigleaguepolitics. How many times can Trump supporters fall for the same BS lies? I guess a lot--otherwise there wouldn't be so many websites that pander to them.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 5:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
No, there isn't such a correlation.


Yes, there is. Despite your efforts to distract and move the goalposts, the 1% paid a higher % of their income as taxes when rates were 90% then they do now. There is a correlation between one's tax rate and how much tax he pays.

Government spending in the 50s and 60s increased at the same rate as usual. The trend line is not sharper during those decades.

Reality says
GDP growth is a bad thing when it is due to government spending and central planning


Good--since that wasn't the case in the years with high top tax rates and high GDP, then my point stands.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 5:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
The 1948-73 real economic growth was much less than the cited 2.8% when we subtract the rapidly expanding government spending. That's explains why the US government had to default on the "Gold Window" by 1973, despite the fraudulent GDP print that you cited.


OK then--I've shown data to support my point. You've shown nothing. How about providing some data showing the "true" growth.

Especially considering that government spending was increasing at the same rate back then as it is now.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 5:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says

The opposite. I get uncomfortable from a FREEDOM! boner, knowing he's turned another person away from the dark side with his puerile smug stupidity.

Never interrupt your enemies when they're putting on a clown show, digging deeper, and thinking their mistakes are the pathway to Victory.


lol. It is amazing that Trump supporters are in such a bubble that they have no idea how these issues are really playing in the country. All they know is how their extreme base reacts.

Here's a little real data:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380443-students-leading-gun-violence-protests-seen-more-favorably-than

"A majority of respondents, 56 percent, see the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who organized Saturday's March for Our Lives, in a positive light, compared to 34 percent who say they have an unfavorable view of them.
By comparison, only 39 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of the NRA, the powerful gun rights lobbying group that has vehemently opposed the student-led protests. Forty-four percent of respondents have a negative view."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/379939-ap-poll-finds-highest-support-for-gun-control-in-five-years

"Nearly 7 in 10 adults surveyed in the Associated Press–NORC poll are now in favor of stronger gun control laws, the highest measure of support in the five years the AP has asked the question. Overall, 69 percent of those polled favored stricter gun control measures, a large jump from the 55 percent who indicated support in an October 2013 poll."

This is a NOT a winning issue for Republicans. But, by all means, keep mocking high school kids! Keep calling them names!

I'm sure suburban soccer Moms will react favorably to that...
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 6:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Nice that a poster asks me an easily answered question but ignores me so I can't respond to him. I guess that's how Trump supporters roll these days. Very trollish behavior.

But, in any event, here's a source with Rubio's NRA money.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/marco-rubio-took-millions-from-nra-did-nothing-to-prevent-parkland-10089415

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html

Rubio--$3.3MM
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 7:16am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm sure this is no problem. Not against the rules at all
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 8:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Why does it matter if voters pool capital to support guns rights and political proponents of those rights?

The extreme left has proven the value of an NRA membership. I don't own any guns, but I may join the nra today because the 2nd amendment is both of vital importance and under attack.


It matters if that money is used to buy votes. That's illegal.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 8:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
The blind masses have often been against the constitution. That's the point of the constitution. The idiot masses are not supposed to be able to tread on your sovereign individual rights


I don't think anyone is against the right for militias to bear arms. So, really, nobody is against the Constitution.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 8:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says

Ha Ha Ha, providing "data"..

that's awesome.


I know--none of the Trump supporters ever provide data.. It is humorous.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 8:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says

As long as the current population uses muskets, and not the currently available firearms, right?


The current population is irrelevant. We're talking about militias.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 8:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Define "buy votes".


Giving money to a candidate in return for a guarantee that he/she will vote in the way you tell them to.

CBOEtrader says
It's as democratic and grassroots as a political organization gets.


lol. Grassroots is giving money to a candidate because you share his views. NRA instructs candidates how to vote and keeps a scorecard to blackmail them. Threatens to finance their opponents if they don't vote the way the NRA orders them to.

The NRA is the exact opposite of grassroots and democratic. It is part of the swamp.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 8:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Where does the NRA gets its money/influence?

Your answer here = grassroots.


Russia.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 8:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says

Yes it is perfectly reasonable, even preferable, in a democratic republic to state exactly what your group expects from elected officials. TY for proving that the NRA is a model for grassroots political support.


Sure--but you cannot pay for that vote. That is illegal.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 10:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
The current population IS the militia.


huh? A militia is an organized group that must be joined.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 10:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
The Trend Ain't Your Friend.



That chart is 5 years old. Here's a more pertinent one:



I think the trend over the last few years is pretty clear. (blue line is support for stricter gun control) And it's not your friend.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 10:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
And in all many areas of the country that aren't Urban Heavily Blue districts, Democrats lose, lose, lose, on Gun Control. There isn't a campaign adviser anywhere that recommends Democrats campaign on Gun Control, because its a losing issue for them. From Chuck Schumer to Chris Murphy, Democrat bigwigs are urging candidates to avoid the Gun Control issue like the plague in the Midterms.

November is a long way off. And even CNN can't keep beating the Gun Control drum for 7-8 months straight.


Not anymore. It's a losing issue in very rural areas, for certain. But in the suburbs where the Dems are going flip a lot of seats in Nov., it is absolutely a winning issue. Commercials of Republican politicians and talking heads mocking high school kids who survived a school shooting will be big wins.

The NRA has a -15% favorability rating. It's too bad Rubio isn't up for election this year--he would be hammered with that.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 10:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
My apologies for assuming the relevant data is at the finger tip of anyone bothering to look up.


If it's so easily obtained, why would you not post it? Are your fingertips too busy?

Reality says
I was pointing out


Yes, I'm aware of what you were saying. Rather than restating it again, most people would have actually provided the backup data to support their point. The fact that you didn't is quite telling.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 10:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
On top of that, the idea that taxing the top 20% to 1% more would make the economy and society better is simply wrong!


Nope--it's correct. It is easily seen in the decline in money velocity as more and more money is hoarded at the top. Wealth inequality is the biggest problem in the US economy by a wide margin.

Reality says
You can look up the growth of federal government spending during 1948-1973. The annual growth rate was around 6% annual rate (a little more than 4x over 25 years), while the GDP (combining both the real economy and the government waste) only grew at about 2.8% annually. That's why, despite your love for those years that you never lived personally, the cumulative effect of those 25 years was the US government having to default on the obligations of the post-WWII world financial system (Bretton Woods) and the Americans on the verge of facing run-away inflation and stagnation


OK--still waiting for your charts and graphs that strip away the government spending and show the "true" growth so we can compare those numbers. Otherwise my data stands unopposed. And the correlation between high top tax rate and GDP growth remains quite strong.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 30, 11:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HappyGilmore says
The conclusion: despite much higher top tax bracket nominal tax rate, the actual federal government spending as a percentage of the real economy was much much smaller in the 50's than in the 1970's (and later). Concentration of wealth and power is the result of government spending; comes to think of it, that should be obvious: North Korea and Venezuela have much greater government intervention in the economy, resulting in much greater wealth polarization between the billionaire leaders (in USD terms despite being in those poor socialist countries) vs. the actually starving-to-death poor.


Poor conclusion. Governmental waste is higher now than in either 1950 or 1970 and GDP is much lower. This is because of wealth inequality.

Bottom line: High top tax rate had an effect on inequality which can lead to better economic performance.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 31, 7:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Last I checked, Rauner was a Republican.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 31, 10:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Wow, a hugely irresponsible speculation followed by owning himself in the most embarrassing way.

Couldn’t you just admit that you know nothing at all whatsoever about the subject? Or maybe do some research? Good lord...


It's called an observation followed by an admission that I don't have real data to prove it.

I have looked, but there isn't anything I could find showing demographics of pit bull owners.

@Patrick--this is also against the rules, but I appear to have lost my personal button again. It doesn't appear that mods actually want people to use it. Every time I rightly use it, the post is put back and I lose my button. I highly doubt anything will be done since I'm on the wrong team.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 31, 10:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Sniper says

Damn, I just hate when a narrative is blown up.


Oh yeah--

I forgot again. When Dems are governor, it's the governor's fault. When Reps are governor, it's the State House's fault.

Same for the nation--when Dems are President, it's the President's fault. When Reps are President, it's Congress fault.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 31, 10:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
Look what comes up as the first search result:

Pit bull owners :
Not normal dog owners.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-owners.php

Or this one:
Psychological Characteristics Owners of Aggressive Dog Breeds
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/200903/psychological-characteristics-owners-aggressivedog-breeds


Not sure if you know what the word demographics means.

I found several articles that say that pit bull owners are more aggressive, anti-social, and are more likely to have a criminal record. But nothing about race, Nothing about urban vs. rural. Nothing about income levels of owners.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 1, 7:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
HappyGilmore says
My guess is that there is a strong correlation between gun nut, NRA loving Trump supporters and pit bull owners.


How does race, urban or rural, or income levels factor into that statement?

Oops....


Uh, there is a strong correlation between NRA loving Trump supporters and race and rural. That's how it factors in.

NRA loving Trump supporters are much more likely to be rural white folks.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 2, 9:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Like I've said before, Nate was 100% correct. Late deciders broke heavily in Trump's favor, which swung the election to him.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 2, 1:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
amazing that you can't admit how wrong nate silver was.


lol--my posts get edited and this flies right by.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 2, 1:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
While the Democratic presidential nominee has a 65.7 percent chance of winning the presidency on Tuesday, she is not "in a terribly safe position," the pollster said on ABC's "This Week.


TwoScoopsPlissken says
"The electoral map is actually less solid for Clinton than it was for Obama four years ago," Silver said.


TwoScoopsPlissken says

"Clinton has about 270, so she's one state away from losing the Electoral College," he said.


"You would rather be in her shoes than [Republican nominee] Donald Trump, but she's not in a terribly safe position."

  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 2, 1:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

P N Dr Lo R says
You're welcome! It's not like they haven't been over-valued about 50% forever from artificially low interest rates.


How can one tell whether interest rates are artificially low? What data can one use to determine the proper interest rate level?
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 2, 2:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

P N Dr Lo R says
That's easy. 5%-6% interest rates were the norm from time immemorial--of course double digit during late 70's to early 80's to stop inflation. I couldn't count the numbers of CD's I had over a 30 to 40 year period in those ranges. When I bought an annuity in 1999 interest rates were around 6%. The man at the bank told me as I was leaving that oh by the way this annuity has a floor of 3% which it will provide if interest rates ever fall below that level, which of course they never will. That 3% has been pretty good over the past ten years or so.


But clearly interest rates must vary with the overall economy, right? Assuming they should always default to 5-6% seems overly simplistic.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 2, 3:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Artificially low rates involve market manipulation by the government. Rates have been considered artificially low basically since the meltdown, because the government basically lowered its rate to 0 to prop up house prices. Lending money at 0 is unsustainable and so it is artificially low.


I agree with your post in its entirety but I don't believe the government is lending money at 0 percent anymore and hasn't been for some time. If the government was causing artificially low rates, I would have expected them to shoot up once government stopped loaning at 0 percent. We didn't really see that. All we are seeing is rates slowly rise with economic strength, as expected.

I believe it's entirely supply and demand driven and not artificially low at all. There's just a crap ton of available cash sloshing around with nowhere to go. Lots of supply and not very much qualified demand = low rates.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 3, 6:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
nafta, tpp, unlimited immigration , free trade-all pushed by repubs?


Of course. NAFTA, TPP, free trade is a core Republican plank.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 3, 10:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
Zero IS artificially low.


Not sure what this even means. There is nowhere to get a zero percent loan now so what is keeping rates "artificially low" now?
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 4, 10:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says

that own Pit Bulls too, right?

Where are those demographics?


This argument appears to be going in circles now. I think it's fair to say it's been exhausted.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 4, 10:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
I just don't understand democrats-one trick pony -I guess the vast number of people not paying taxes is their base. They take from us and give to them.


The main goal is this proposal is to change how revenue is collected. Reduce property tax, increase state tax. Make the state income tax graduated.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 4, 10:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
The Illinois Economy is already hollowed out. Like getting blood from a rock.


Latest numbers I found easily were 2015 where IL is 5th in State GDP and 15th in GDP/capita. Seems to be doing fine.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 4, 12:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Just fine?


Yep. The economy is doing fine.

If the point was that IL had a debt problem, then it would have been correct. But to say it's "hollowed out" is not correct.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 4, 2:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Nobody says
The flat income tax increase sounds like it will hit the lower income family harder than the rich.


The article describes the details-it won't. The headline of this thread doesn't really describe the proposal at all. Anyone would be advised to read the proposal and decide themselves.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 4, 2:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
A local economy is fine when the state can’t afford to pay its short and long term liabilities without borrowing money or increasing taxes?

That screams insolvency. Not “fine”.


US Economy screams insolvency too then. Thanks Trump.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 5, 9:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
Yep. Just amazes me how some can argue that the vast government bureaucracy shouldn't have any skin in the game and only the tax payers should suffer to keep these gold plated pensions in place. People are really suffering and going to such extremes of moving out of the State because they can't afford the taxes and dysfunctional government services.


Government workers are taxpayers too. It's seems like the above is arguing that they should have MORE skin in the game.

The problem is how do you legally change the terms of their contract without going through bankruptcy?



The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions