[Hoot Gibson]

Or it could be that weve all gone to work making America great again.
Sadly, the Trump haters will also benefit and reap the rewards of this administration.

I'm not a Trump hate but I am not a Trump worshipper either. The man is a pathological liar but he is still a whole lot better than the crook that he defeated and 80 to 90 percent of the members of Congress. I don't expect the Trump worshippers to find any fault with him, but failing to repeal (or even to attempt to repeal) Obamacare in its entirety is not my idea of making America great again. Neither is continuing to pay the crook who is running the IRS, failing to pursue a real investigation into Hillary Clinton's crimes, or letting Reince Preibus into the Oval Office - let alone naming the RINO his Chief of Staff.

Trump has done a lot of good things so far, but he should be reaching out to conservative Republicans instead of treating them worse than Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. If he alienates conservatives, then we will have no choice but to bribe a few liberal Democrats into supporting his agenda. The math is pretty simple and if he attempts a real repeal of Obamacare, which he promised to do, then he will have the support of every conservative in Congress.

[Hoot Gibson]

t

All the stuff I posted come off one website
And by your reply they are wrong because if Reagan was responsible for Bill Clinton biggest jobs gain than any other president then how in the hell did he beat Bush ?
You do know Bush was president for four years before Clinton?
Or did Bush do away with Reagans economy plans when he took office and put them back in place before he left so Bill would get the credit?

If you steal somebody else's work and fail to give them credit, it is theft. If you steal multiple people's work without giving any of them credit, it is theft. That is what plagiarism is - theft. If it is intentional, you are a thief, and if it is inadvertent, then you give your source credit when it is pointed out that you posted somebody else's work as your own. You plagiarize so often that there is no way it is unintentional. You are a thief, pure and simple.

[TheRealThing]

That's just it, O stulted one, "our own eyes"... apparently, you believe you see from the perspective of truth, and, therefore, "your eyes" are unbiased. What the economy was when Reagan left depended on the vantage point from which you looked. An example: according to the CBO, if you are a highly paid, white collar executive, the GOP healthcare plan is nice, very nice. However, if you happen to be blue collar line worker who voted for President Trump, not so much. From the vantage point of white collar economic elites, truth is one thing. From the vantage point of a married couple working at Walmart, or a father working on the floor in manufacturing at a paint factory, it is another.

If you are suggesting that trickle down economics is and was a rising tide that lifted and lifts all boats, I reject that suggestion out of hand.

I didn't suggest anything, my household did benefit mightily from the Reagan economic boom though. Mortgage rates fell, inflation rates fell, unemployment rates fell and rabid libs of that day denied the truth of it the same way you deny the truth of it today. That wasn't a suggestion, it happened. I knew better than that back then and I know better than that now.

Government can't provide utopian bliss for the so-called poor, though the past 8 years has seen it try to do exactly that by taking the benefits of health care away from those who earned it, and just give it to others in the liberal redistribution scheme of your hero, dubbed ObamaCare.

The CBO could not have been more wrong in their initial scoring of ObamaCare, but despite that you're happy to go along with this latest prediction because it makes the Trump Administration look bad. I prefer to sit back and see how things turn out, but you go ahead and play the financial expert. The jaws of the trap were sprung by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi when they rammed ObamaCare through in suspending Senate rules and making back door tax payer funded vote buying deals to bring this plague upon us in the first place. The aftermath has been what we have been left with as we must deal now with the expense and the mess Dems created. Meanwhile conspiring media give them the cover they need to keep the wool pulled over the willfully gullible, who like you, consider their TV attained indoctrinations to have made themselves political visionaries. All I see are over baked talking points and DNC provided rationales.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I didn't suggest anything, my household did benefit mightily from the Reagan economic boom though. Mortgage rates fell, inflation rates fell, unemployment rates fell and rabid libs of that day denied the truth of it the same way you deny the truth of it today. That wasn't a suggestion, it happened. I knew better than that back then and I know better than that now.

Government can't provide utopian bliss for the so-called poor, though the past 8 years has seen it try to do exactly that by taking the benefits of health care away from those who earned it, and just give it to others in the liberal redistribution scheme of your hero, dubbed ObamaCare.

The CBO could not have been more wrong in their initial scoring of ObamaCare, but despite that you're happy to go along with this latest prediction because it makes the Trump Administration look bad. I prefer to sit back and see how things turn out, but you go ahead and play the financial expert. The jaws of the trap were sprung by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi when they rammed ObamaCare through in suspending Senate rules and making back door tax payer funded vote buying deals to bring this plague upon us in the first place. The aftermath has been what we have been left with as we must deal now with the expense and the mess Dems created. Meanwhile conspiring media give them the cover they need to keep the wool pulled over the willfully gullible, who like you, consider their TV attained indoctrinations to have made themselves political visionaries. All I see are over baked talking points and DNC provided rationales.

Apparently, TRT, you believe the only folks who can possibly have "vision" politically are guys with careers in talk or print media, and you. What I said was that trickle down economics is not a tide that lifts all boats. To which you responded, "me and my family." While I agree that the favorite radio station of humanity is WIIFM (What's in it for me), I do not believe seeking economic policies that lift the maximum number of boats is "socialism." You seem to think the only options are Robin Hood economics or reverse Robin Hood economics. As for "willful gullibility," your fanaticism for Donald Trump, again, renders you a comical voice in this area of pontification.

[TheRealThing]

I'm not a Trump hate but I am not a Trump worshipper either. The man is a pathological liar but he is still a whole lot better than the crook that he defeated and 80 to 90 percent of the members of Congress. I don't expect the Trump worshippers to find any fault with him, but failing to repeal (or even to attempt to repeal) Obamacare in its entirety is not my idea of making America great again. Neither is continuing to pay the crook who is running the IRS, failing to pursue a real investigation into Hillary Clinton's crimes, or letting Reince Preibus into the Oval Office - let alone naming the RINO his Chief of Staff.

Trump has done a lot of good things so far, but he should be reaching out to conservative Republicans instead of treating them worse than Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. If he alienates conservatives, then we will have no choice but to bribe a few liberal Democrats into supporting his agenda. The math is pretty simple and if he attempts a real repeal of Obamacare, which he promised to do, then he will have the support of every conservative in Congress.

I agree with most of this, although I think you get Trump worshipers confused with those who've had enough of the RINO's and the Dems, and who as of this point still seem to have no other option. That and my opinion, which is narcissists and pathological liars make strange bedfellows. We're not even two months into the Trump Administration so I think it's too early to write his review, not that you're doing that, but he'll need time enough to get things done. You may have a better track on this than I do, but is he treating conservatives worse, or is he taking them for granted? As things stand, he will have to run over the subversive efforts of the deep staters, the judicial activists, and likely every last Democrat other than Joe Manchin though, and that will cost him even more time.

Now, I'm not defending Republicans in what they're doing as that pertains to the idea of legislative bridging for the poor from ObamaCare/Medicaid, to whatever plan they come up with. All I'm saying is they're worried about how they're going to do it, because they see that as a backbreaker for the continuance of Republican leadership. And between iconic civil rights activists who inhabit the Congress, and the media who specialize in the Hollywood level production of applied human suffering which they air nightly on the News-turned-soap-opera, the two together manage effectively to hang around the necks of Republicans the blame for all ills. Nonetheless, even though most people who do have ObamaCare get it mostly paid for by the federal government, I can see why they don't want to just drop everybody currently on the rolls. I don't like it, but I see the problem.

ObamaCare has cost the taxpayer dearly. From the 'Cornhusker Kickback' to the 'Louisiana Purchase' to the cozy deals for insurance providers, to every last subsidized premium for the poor, the taxpayer have spent 14 thousand per ObamaCare enrollee to date. How does one just throw a switch and say to heck with it at this point? Bottom line, it cost us to get down the river this far, and it will likely cost us even more to get back to where we were. I know there was not the first Republican vote behind the passage of this mess. For the time being, I am willing to let the process work itself out and see where Republicans lead us, there is still much hope in that prospect. The alternative is more Democrat leadership and like I said, we've had enough Nancy in Wonderland for a lifetime.

[TheRealThing]

Apparently, TRT, you believe the only folks who can possibly have "vision" politically are guys with careers in talk or print media, and you. What I said was that trickle down economics is not a tide that lifts all boats. To which you responded, "me and my family." While I agree that the favorite radio station of humanity is WIIFM (What's in it for me), I do not believe seeking economic policies that lift the maximum number of boats is "socialism." You seem to think the only options are Robin Hood economics or reverse Robin Hood economics. As for "willful gullibility," your fanaticism for Donald Trump, again, renders you a comical voice in this area of pontification.

No, I said you deny the truth and espouse the revisionist rewrite because it suits your palate. And I said, though your indoctrination via TV has left you full of yourself and the opinions of others, you are somewhat lacking. Take your grasp of Geophysics for example. Tidal influences end at the beach and estuaries of the coastline. Boats inland, are therefore never affected by them and such is the natural order of things. For reasons I'm certain have escaped you, everybody cannot be rich or even well off. But if you try leaning your head to the side and bang it a little with the heel of your hand, some of that high tide may run out and you'll feel better. :Thumbs:

All liberals, you included, continually conflate secular morality, socialism, and our free system of enterprise. Thankfully, the only power you really have is one vote. However, being that you're good with a keyboard, I'm sure Edward Snowden wouldn't mind filling you in on the shortfalls of your rationale and I'd say you both could use a penpal.

[The Urban Sombrero]

No, I said you deny the truth and espouse the revisionist rewrite because it suits your palate. And I said, though your indoctrination via TV has left you full of yourself and the opinions of others, you are somewhat lacking. Take your grasp of Geophysics for example. Tidal influences end at the beach and estuaries of the coastline. Boats inland, are therefore never affected by them and such is the natural order of things. For reasons I'm certain have escaped you, everybody cannot be rich or even well off. But if you try leaning your head to the side and bang it a little with the heel of your hand, some of that high tide may run out and you'll feel better. :Thumbs:

All liberals, you included, continually conflate secular morality, socialism, and our free system of enterprise. Thankfully, the only power you really have is one vote. However, being that you're good with a keyboard, I'm sure Edward Snowden wouldn't mind filling you in on the shortfalls of your rationale and I'd say you both could use a penpal.

Your analogy is clever but not relevant, much like many of your posts. If you are here denying that trickle down economics had winners and losers, so be it. However, that fact is no spin nor revision of the Reagan years. I was around also, so pointless for you to go all long in the tooth and granny pants wisdom. Near as I can tell, you tout an economic Darwinism, flash a grin, and call it free enterprise. You'd pollute a stream to increase profits and call it free enterprise. You'd render an entire terrain a wastescape an call it free enterprise. Or, do you draw some lines? Have you any scruples about corporate responsibility? Or, do you play with toy boats and give long, irrelevant lectures about tidal activity gleaned from National Geographic programming?

[TheRealThing]

Your analogy is clever but not relevant, much like many of your posts. If you are here denying that trickle down economics had winners and losers, so be it. However, that fact is no spin nor revision of the Reagan years. I was around also, so pointless for you to go all long in the tooth and granny pants wisdom. Near as I can tell, you tout an economic Darwinism, flash a grin, and call it free enterprise. You'd pollute a stream to increase profits and call it free enterprise. You'd render an entire terrain a wastescape an call it free enterprise. Or, do you draw some lines? Have you any scruples about corporate responsibility? Or, do you play with toy boats and give long, irrelevant lectures about tidal activity gleaned from National Geographic programming?

You might have been around, but though it would not seem possible, you knew even less then what you're talking about, than you do now. But please do give us benefit of your vast insight, and tell us all about the economy that has only all winners. I can barely stand the suspense.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You might have been around, but though it would not seem possible, you knew even less then what you're talking about, than you do now. But please do give us benefit of your vast insight, and tell us all about the economy that has only all winners. I can barely stand the suspense.

There is no economy that has all winners. In every economy a certain % of "able bodied" find reason not to work. In every program, the dishonest and ingenuous lazy will find ways to gain something for nothing. In no society can those able but unwilling to contribute continue to leech resources they do nothing to create. However, it is the working poor, and the working lower middle that did not experience the Reagan 80's as you say. I am not bashing Ronald Reagan. He was a needed anodyne to the Carter years. Of course it depends on amendments and how things shake out, but I am dubious about Ryan's healthcare bill, in that it seems like the same old GOP: stroke the least vulnerable, strike the most.

[TheRealThing]

There is no economy that has all winners. In every economy a certain % of "able bodied" find reason not to work. In every program, the dishonest and ingenuous lazy will find ways to gain something for nothing. In no society can those able but unwilling to contribute continue to leech resources they do nothing to create. However, it is the working poor, and the working lower middle that did not experience the Reagan 80's as you say. I am not bashing Ronald Reagan. He was a needed anodyne to the Carter years. Of course it depends on amendments and how things shake out, but I am dubious about Ryan's healthcare bill, in that it seems like the same old GOP: stroke the least vulnerable, strike the most.

Of course there is no economy that has all winners. But that doesn't keep people like you from acting like people who're poor, are all victims of greedy corporations and such. What are you even talking about when you say corporate responsibility anyway? Hasn't the widespread existence of unions largely done away with substandard wages and benefits? Wages and benefits that ObamaCare has devastated for the foreseeable future I might add. I mean owing to ObamaCare, each taxpayer has been saddled with paying an average of 14 thousand dollars annually for somebody else's health care needs. The Dem's mantra; 'We care, you pay.'

Anodyne? People on the left and the right hated Reagan exactly the way they do Trump. And you couldn't be more wrong about the fortunes of the working middle class during and immediately following the Reagan years. But did it ever occur to you that the reason many people are poor is because they just don't have the drive or the desire to get out there and compete? No of course not, it's those darn rich guys who are just too selfish to give them their money, right? The welfare tipping point was reached several years ago.

EXCERPT---
[SIZE="2"]"In 2013, according to the Census Bureau, there were 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States -- including 16,685,000 full-time government workers. These full-time workers were outnumbered by the 109,631,000 whom the Census Bureau says were getting benefits from means-tested federal programs -- e.g. welfare -- as of the fourth quarter of 2012.

"Every American family that pays its own way -- and takes care of its own children whether with one or two incomes -- must subsidize the 109,631,000 on welfare."[/SIZE]
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...-time-wor/

So now you tell me, given the fact that in 1964 only 350,000 people were on food stamps and that today we have nearly 50 million on food stamps, how much compassion and generosity is enough? The 'Great Society" initiative turned millions of US citizens into welchers.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Of course there is no economy that has all winners. But that doesn't keep people like you from acting like people who're poor, are all victims of greedy corporations and such. What are you even talking about when you say corporate responsibility anyway? Hasn't the widespread existence of unions largely done away with substandard wages and benefits? Wages and benefits that ObamaCare has devastated for the foreseeable future I might add. I mean owing to ObamaCare, each taxpayer has been saddled with paying an average of 14 thousand dollars annually for somebody else's health care needs. The Dem's mantra; 'We care, you pay.'

Anodyne? People on the left and the right hated Reagan exactly the way they do Trump. And you couldn't be more wrong about the fortunes of the working middle class during and immediately following the Reagan years. But did it ever occur to you that the reason many people are poor is because they just don't have the drive or the desire to get out there and compete? No of course not, it's those darn rich guys who are just too selfish to give them their money, right? The welfare tipping point was reached several years ago.

EXCERPT---
[SIZE="2"]"In 2013, according to the Census Bureau, there were 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States -- including 16,685,000 full-time government workers. These full-time workers were outnumbered by the 109,631,000 whom the Census Bureau says were getting benefits from means-tested federal programs -- e.g. welfare -- as of the fourth quarter of 2012.

"Every American family that pays its own way -- and takes care of its own children whether with one or two incomes -- must subsidize the 109,631,000 on welfare."[/SIZE]
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...-time-wor/

So now you tell me, given the fact that in 1964 only 350,000 people were on food stamps and that today we have nearly 50 million on food stamps, how much compassion and generosity is enough? The 'Great Society" initiative turned millions of US citizens into welchers.

You only thoroughly read your own posts. That's clear. Nowhere do I blame greedy corporations for income stratification. I do point out that things like mountain top removal were not designed and implemented in the overall best interests of the totality of mountain culture and community.
I would point out that massive income inequality and stratification are perhaps a better historical indicator of declining social structures than many of the "culture war" issues you rave about. In my post, I state that no society can continue indefinitely when those who are able but refuse to contribute leech resources they do nothing to help create. I cited the working poor and the low end of the middle class, if the middle class is viewed in three layer cake strata.
Again, you are simply wrong if you hold that trickle down economics lifted the working poor and the lowest strata of the middle class, and have fashioned your own fantasy land in illusory warm fuzzies for Reagan's economy. Right and left, in my view, have to leave old rhetoric and old scars behind. Hard decisions have to be made going forward, including entitlement reform, tax code reform, campaign finance reform. Both sides are going to have to bite the bullet on some past bulwarks. In this, I think, TRT, we agree: this nation cannot remain on its present course and remain solvent and strong for the next hundred years. Sacred cows may have to be slaughtered. For instance, much more emphasis on preventative care, and focus on catastrophic care coverages, with less coverage at lower ends of illness (some of the ideas of the former CBO Director). I personally think we are about to enter a time of social change, and it will be painful, and medicare, social security, and defense have to be on the table.

[TheRealThing]

You only thoroughly read your own posts. That's clear. Nowhere do I blame greedy corporations for income stratification. I do point out that things like mountain top removal were not designed and implemented in the overall best interests of the totality of mountain culture and community.
I would point out that massive income inequality and stratification are perhaps a better historical indicator of declining social structures than many of the "culture war" issues you rave about. In my post, I state that no society can continue indefinitely when those who are able but refuse to contribute leech resources they do nothing to help create. I cited the working poor and the low end of the middle class, if the middle class is viewed in three layer cake strata.
Again, you are simply wrong if you hold that trickle down economics lifted the working poor and the lowest strata of the middle class, and have fashioned your own fantasy land in illusory warm fuzzies for Reagan's economy. Right and left, in my view, have to leave old rhetoric and old scars behind. Hard decisions have to be made going forward, including entitlement reform, tax code reform, campaign finance reform. Both sides are going to have to bite the bullet on some past bulwarks. In this, I think, TRT, we agree: this nation cannot remain on its present course and remain solvent and strong for the next hundred years. Sacred cows may have to be slaughtered. For instance, much more emphasis on preventative care, and focus on catastrophic care coverages, with less coverage at lower ends of illness (some of the ideas of the former CBO Director). I personally think we are about to enter a time of social change, and it will be painful, and medicare, social security, and defense have to be on the table.

Out of one side of your mouth you admitted there is no economy that guarantees everybody will become winners. Then out the other side without even catching a breath, you speak of income inequality.

I haven't forgotten your loose Biblical interpretation where your first conflated Scripture and Socialism, in which you claim that the Lord will in the last days, level the financial playing field. As if He agrees with your view on the unfairness of income inequality. So don't dodge what you've argued on here from the first day of your emergence as Sombrero.

YOUR WORDS?

"The poor you will always have among you" is high authority suggesting playing field is not level. Blessed are the poor...but woe unto you rich" is high authority the playing field will flip. Early in the Book of Acts, when the believers held all in common, a long distant relative of posters here represented wrote a papyrus note to Peter, suggesting they weren't being good capitalists.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Out of one side of your mouth you admitted there is no economy that guarantees everybody will become winners. Then out the other side without even catching a breath, you speak of income inequality.

I haven't forgotten your loose Biblical interpretation where your first conflated Scripture and Socialism, in which you claim that the Lord will in the last days, level the financial playing field. As if He agrees with your view on the unfairness of income inequality. So don't dodge what you've argued on here from the first day of your emergence as Sombrero.

YOUR WORDS?

"The last shall be first."
"Blessed are you who are poor now...but woe unto you who are rich."

Now, you, sir, may be of the sort to spiritualize these teachings thereby taking all revolutionary power out of them, but, then again, I am not as taken with your expository insight as you yourself are. It is called "The Great Reversal" and is not a new idea. It was the poor and downtrodden and oucast who "heard Jesus gladly." This is no social gospel, nor socialism: that is your spin on my words. At the Great Reversal it will be foolish to speak of Man's systems: the kingdom and economy of God need no name, take no spin: Christ Hinself is Light, and we live on love divine.
You simply cannot refrain from the straw man fallacy. It's a compulsion.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆ In a structure and system such as exists in Babylon, "thick leather chairs" can read tea leaves (and auditor's reports) and offload stock like smugglers ditching drugs in the Atlantic, leaving retirees bereft of their retirement. This "thick leather chair 'round a big round table" structure helps create income inequality. You seem to narrow the issue of income inequality down to food stamp cards. Given your penchant for an "either/or" worldview, this is not particularly surprising. It is wrong, however.

Also, stop confusing eschatology. Income inequality, and the systems which contribute to it, though do not wholly explain it, will be eradicated in the Great Reversal, as all "rough places" will be "made smooth." Again, here is a typical example of how TRT attempts to "win" a debate. Uncool.

[TheRealThing]

"The last shall be first."
"Blessed are you who are poor now...but woe unto you who are rich."

Now, you, sir, may be of the sort to spiritualize these teachings thereby taking all revolutionary power out of them, but, then again, I am not as taken with your expository insight as you yourself are. It is called "The Great Reversal" and is not a new idea. It was the poor and downtrodden and oucast who "heard Jesus gladly." This is no social gospel, nor socialism: that is your spin on my words. At the Great Reversal it will be foolish to speak of Man's systems: the kingdom and economy of God need no name, take no spin: Christ Hinself is Light, and we live on love divine.
You simply cannot refrain from the straw man fallacy. It's a compulsion.

The last shall be first is speaking of those who are humble before God, not those who are broke. But like I said, you've been talking out of both sides of your mouth. At what point in history did Israel go past the point of helping the poor through acts like gleaning, to giving them an estate with vineyards, fallow fields and livestock? Of course the answer is never, but want to know why that's a fool's errand? Let's take the Lotto for example, one of the favorite analogies of those who teach the great reversal. A guy goes to Circle K and buys a lottery ticket which turns out to be a big winner. One day he has barely enough to cover a 2 dollar ticket, the next he has 150 million dollars in the bank. But what always happens? Two or three years down the road he's broke again. Now, according to your ilk, the poor are being mistreated by the rich, and that's why they are in need. Who are the dirty rats out there forcing all these lotto winners to go broke, that's what I want to know! Anytime the so-called downtrodden are handed things, those things lapse into decay or loss in short order. You give a guy on the street a farm with every piece of equipment he could possibly need to work it, and in a few years that farm will be a grown over disaster. Why do some insist on living on the streets when the government offers every possible form of assistance for the asking?

And why is it that only a few find their way to the straight gate? It doesn't matter because man is not their judge, nor is he their keeper. According to the Lord owing to man's free will, that is just the way of things. Now, I didn't say we can slack on spreading the Gospel or that we should shut down the soup kitchens. In fact though, between Church benevolence and State assistance programs, I'd say every effort is being made to meet folks physical needs. But that doesn't stop Mommy and Daddy from selling their food stamps and buying beer and cigarettes now does it? AFWIW, I couldn't help but notice that you completely sidestepped the fact that foodstamp recipients grew from 350,000 in 1964 to 50 million currently. We pay people for sloth as the record proves. Death, suffering and want entered into the world through sin. The poor of spirit are not those who necessarily lack for money, they are the ones humble enough to recognize their need of a Savior. Great by this world's standards does not make one great by the Lord's standards, it's a spiritual issue, and has not a lot to do with money. And why does the Lord say a man who doesn't take care of those of his own house is worse than an infidel? We are responsible before Him to make our own way.

There is nothing wrong with having money. The problems come with the love of money, not the amount of money loved, which could conceivably be any amount. You argue for socialism which you clothe in spiritual heresy. The length of time a particular fallacy has been around doesn't gain it any more credibility in my eyes. And because the Bible doesn't mention any doctrine of some kind of great financial reversal, that doesn't mean the notion is diminished at all in your eyes, right? Christ said after He forgave the woman taken in adultery, "Go, and sin no more." It's no more an affront to men to be afflicted by sin, or disease than it is to be poor, or vice versa. Christ is interested in the souls of men, not getting even with the people of means of whom He gave their wealth in the first place.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆ Pure fiction: I did not argue that income inequality is solely the rich mistreating the poor. That is your straw. I do not suggest that the able to work but refusing leeching resources is mutually exclusive to "big soft leather chairs and mahogany board room tables" existing in a structure which strokes the haves and strikes the most vulnerable is a mutually exclusive reality. That is your either/or fallacy. You continue to plant bones then sniff them out. Apparenly, all nuance of opinion is "talking out of both sides of the mouth" to you. Your ilk is of the very mindset that keeps this country gridlocked.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Christ gave the wealth to the Enron insiders? What rot is that? By this reasoning, the money changers at the temple were angels in disguise. Giant rot.

[TheRealThing]

⬆ Pure fiction: I did not argue that income inequality is solely the rich mistreating the poor. That is your straw. I do not suggest that the able to work but refusing leeching resources is mutually exclusive to "big soft leather chairs and mahogany board room tables" existing in a structure which strokes the haves and strikes the most vulnerable is a mutually exclusive reality. That is your either/or fallacy. You continue to plant bones then sniff them out. Apparenly, all nuance of opinion is "talking out of both sides of the mouth" to you. Your ilk is of the very mindset that keeps this country gridlocked.

Christ gave the wealth to the Enron insiders? What rot is that? By this reasoning, the money changers at the temple were angels in disguise. Giant rot.

You argue from that perspective nearly every time you've posted on this forum. But your new posting aura is most impressive, just act like you're certain, state things in categorical terms and everybody will really believe you then boy! :please:

I said those who teach some kind of a great financial reversal make that argument, and so did you when you said God has threatened rich people in your earlier post in which you stated He will flip the field on the rich as if they're all inherently evil. Here is what John H Armstrong teaches about the nature of the great reversal:

"In summary, the poor are not loved more by God than the rich. The “preference” for them is not rooted in their being “better” than any other class or people. The “preference” is itself a display of God’s deep love for all people, [SIZE="3"]especially those who are trampled on and mistreated by the rich and those who oppress."[/SIZE]

And here is Katie Funk Wiebe's take on the meaning of the great reversal:

The Great Reversal,” a term coined by historian Timothy L. Smith, refers to the switchback evangelicals made in the early part of this century from evangelical social concern to individualism. The early church, both in England and America, was noted for its social involvement, establishing welfare societies such as the Salvation Army, schools for immigrants, homes for unwed mothers, city missions, and agencies to help the poor, the sick, prisoners, and other needy folk. The church supported legislation to bring about social justice.

Of course all the above was going down prior to the inception of comprehensive welfare, which makes those efforts to help look like child's play. Either way, this is all a liberal notion which explains why you're so all-in on it. And I don't buy for the first second that the Lord has any kind of preference for the poor as indicated by Armstrong. If God is no respecter of persons, it has to be no respecter of rich or poor. But if I thought there was the slightest chance you could do it, I'd suggest that you need to decide whether you want to talk about white collar crime or what you errantly refer to as income inequality, but I know better than to waste my time. As the situation at Enron demonstrates, people are often guilty of corruption and graft. But so too is the guy who charges a 90 year old widow too much to repair her roof. We're not talking about criminals here. We're talking about your social justice notion that everybody must be paid enough to live the dream, whether that be a Walmart greeter or whatever. The union trades have a mantra, a good day's work for a fair day's pay. I don't know call me crazy, but I don't think a guy shoving burgers out the window at McDonald's should make a comparable wage to a union craftsman.

The liberal loves to equivocate and to him, everything (that is all truth) is relative. Whereas The Lord hates middle ground ambiguities from what I can see,
Matthew 5:37 (KJV)
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

At least you did get one thing right, I am an either/or enthusiast.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️ Either there is a God or there isn't: that's one form of an either/ or. Comparing a union craftsman with a fast food worker, as if the advocacy for a living wage means equal wage to a welder? Please. What you deem equivocation is not. You go right ahead suggesting poverty always means humility toward God in the mouth of Christ. The eschatology of the Great Reversal is what it is and means what it means. This world has its riches and values. The one to come has its own. The employee "shoving burgers out the window" embraces the dignity of work for pay. He or she should earn a living wage. Period.

[TheRealThing]

⬆️ Either there is a God or there isn't: that's one form of an either/ or. Comparing a union craftsman with a fast food worker, as if the advocacy for a living wage means equal wage to a welder? Please. What you deem equivocation is not. You go right ahead suggesting poverty always means humility toward God in the mouth of Christ. The eschatology of the Great Reversal is what it is and means what it means. This world has its riches and values. The one to come has its own. The employee "shoving burgers out the window" embraces the dignity of work for pay. He or she should earn a living wage. Period.

That's the spirit, if you're gonna be wrong, be wrong forcefully!

I never even remotely hinted that poverty means humility towards God. Poverty means somebody doesn't have money. And yet when that somebody doesn't bother to go to work, He's in rebellion to God. There is nothing I have read associated with the end of days about any kind of great reversal. I would think the Great Tribulation will be sufficient enough to get the job done, and it's focus is upon all the lost and returning Israel to the fold.

[The Urban Sombrero]

That's the spirit, if you're gonna be wrong, be wrong forcefully!

I never even remotely hinted that poverty means humility towards God. Poverty means somebody doesn't have money. And yet when that somebody doesn't bother to go to work, He's in rebellion to God. There is nothing I have read associated with the end of days about any kind of great reversal. I would think the Great Tribulation will be sufficient enough to get the job done, and it's focus is upon all the lost and returning Israel to the fold.

Ah, trifling with poor in spirit as opposed to just poor in the renderings of Matthew and Luke. Well, brother Luke makes it plain enough. There will be a Great Reversal, as hinted at by a camel through the eye of a needle, and the hearers response to this teaching and others like it. As Kierkeegaard observed, it is forever the habit of opulent cultures for the rich to tribute God for their riches and blame the poor for their poverty. How convenient. However, it is antithetical to the Master and the Spirit of the Gospel. Now, I do not blame the rich for their riches, nor do I laud them, as financial prosperity is a heavy burden and responsibility Scripturally, but I am not stulted enough to believe that all poverty can be symbolized and explained by a photo of a food stamp card. And, sir, yes indeed, on a regional basis, using indices like average rent, utilities, grocery costs etc., a living wage should be determined and set, and it sure ain't $7.35.

[TheRealThing]

Ah, trifling with poor in spirit as opposed to just poor in the renderings of Matthew and Luke. Well, brother Luke makes it plain enough. There will be a Great Reversal, as hinted at by a camel through the eye of a needle, and the hearers response to this teaching and others like it. As Kierkeegaard observed, it is forever the habit of opulent cultures for the rich to tribute God for their riches and blame the poor for their poverty. How convenient. However, it is antithetical to the Master and the Spirit of the Gospel. Now, I do not blame the rich for their riches, nor do I laud them, as financial prosperity is a heavy burden and responsibility Scripturally, but I am not stulted enough to believe that all poverty can be symbolized and explained by a photo of a food stamp card. And, sir, yes indeed, on a regional basis, using indices like average rent, utilities, grocery costs etc., a living wage should be determined and set, and it sure ain't $7.35.

Maybe not. I know Merriam-Webster doesn't think 'stulted' is even a word. But you do tend to speak your own language (at least the parts you don't copy from me) and these Spiritual leanings of yours are no more verifiable than your contentions about our national heritage, which you prefer to force through a social justice filter you call essential liberty. In Luke the reference about a rich man entering heaven being harder than a camel knee crawling through the eye of a needle, (a man sized door in the wall around a city) simply means that he tends to trust in his own riches rather than in God. In the days of Christ the rich were looked up to and thought of as being spiritually superior. Christ dispelled that assumptive error pointing out that riches make for a life of comfort, and as such actually make it harder for a man to recognize his own spiritual need, which is just as great as that of a poor man. Hence the dilemma of the rich young ruler who though he had lived perfectly under the law, just could not go as far as selling all that he had to give to the poor. But the Lord knew what the ruler's reaction would be before He even asked what he had to do to inherit eternal life.

But you claimed earlier to be making an eschatological argument and now here you are citing Luke's account of the rich you ruler. Which is it going to be?

[RunItUpTheGut]

THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT

[Image: http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets...er-169.jpg]

Taken from the liberal whiners over at CNN....
We elected him to do this. Sorry, not sorry.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/opinions/w...index.html

[vector]

THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT

[Image: http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets...er-169.jpg]

Taken from the liberal whiners over at CNN....
We elected him to do this. Sorry, not sorry.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/opinions/w...index.html

Still does nothing to the deficit just shifts more money to the big federal jobs program

[RunItUpTheGut]

Still does nothing to the deficit just shifts more money to the big federal jobs program

Oh, you mean creating jobs instead of wasteful spending?

[TheRealThing]

Oh, you mean creating jobs instead of wasteful spending?

Clever federal economists have worked out a way for folks like vector to feel good about the taxpayers of this land owing an impossibly vast sum of money. They play with words making things seem way more benign than they actually are. Abortions on demand, becomes 'women's health' and deficit spending is supposedly just the difference between what the government spends and what they actually take in each year. I say 'just' because they argue that the deficit and the debt are somehow not the same thing. Obama was forever crowing about lowering the deficit while hiding from the fact that debt growth was in hyperdrive, eventually managing to drive the national debt up to a mind numbing 20 trillion dollars. But to follow the Dem's brand of anti-logic further, health costs/ObamaCare which had gone through the roof, are then justified by saying if the Dems hadn't rammed ObamaCare through it would actually have cost us way more. Yeah sure, and they say actually everything Obama did saved us money because even though he did drive up costs with his meddling programs, the cost would have been far higher if he hadn't acted. Yeah, that's the ticket! How could they lose with an argument like that? And the sad part is lefty supporters all buy it!

We Americans have allowed our federal government which is supposedly of, by and for the people, to spend us into financial oblivion. The cost of ObamaCare for example, has already passed the 1 trillion dollar mark and the nightmare as yet is far from over. And remember during the junior Senator from Illinois' Presidential campaign, when he said that George W having added 4 trillion to the national debt was "unpatriotic?" And of course who could forget all that talk about W driving the US economic 'bus' into the ditch? Then Obama was elected and the national debt screamed like a bottle rocket from 10 trillion to 20 trillion under his own watch. I haven't heard the first squeak out of Dems on that one, nor will we ever hear one of them admit it should it be proven that Trump has saved the taxpayer money. I mean, when Boehner was Speaker he went to the Dems and offered them whatever they wanted not to shut the government down.

To which overture, he was shown the door and the Dems proceeded to shut the government down anyway; While at the same time the covert arm of the party, the media, effectively blamed the Republicans for the whole mess. Republicans had better not wilt this time because the Dems are determined to derail the efforts of this administration. At any rate, here we are post Obama and the media are still at it, claiming that Republicans are in chaos and about to ruin the healthcare system. While Obama was driving the bus we taxpayers gave his administration a blank check, and he just spent anything he needed to prop up ObamaCare. These millions that are supposedly now 'covered', get that coverage paid for using the tax dollars of others to do it. I mean, if Keynesians were correct and money really did grow on trees they may have had something, but forcing working folks to bear the burden, though no skin off their noses, is nonetheless the un-American like reality of it.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Trump lowers debt by 100 billion in first two months. Real conservatism

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/355719/

[vector]

Oh, you mean creating jobs instead of wasteful spending?

Correct if you spend more on the military then you do create more jobs

[vector]

Trump lowers debt by 100 billion in first two months. Real conservatism

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/355719/

Two different situations

Tax Revenue
FY 2009 - $2.1 trillion.
FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion
FY 2017 (est.) - $3.632 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.276 trillion.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-f...ue-3305762
Unemployment rate
Dec 2008 7.3%
J. F. M. A. M. J. J. A. S. O. N. D
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9

Dec 2016 4.7%
Jan 2017 4.8%
Feb 2017 4.7%
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Donald is in a better situation

But the budget he put forward will not pay any of the debt down
Even his own budget director says that

And as far as the numbers they change daily

Trump Wants Credit for Cutting the National Debt. Economists Say Not So Fast
by Shannon Pettypiece
February 25, 2017 at 2:29:39 PM EST
February 26, 2017 at 6:01:34 PM EST


Donald Trump asked on Twitter why the media hasn’t reported that the national debt has dropped since his inauguration. One explanation, some economists said: Trump couldn’t have had anything to do with it.

“Anything that has happened to the debt has been on autopilot since Obama left," said Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University. “If anything, he is taking credit for something Obama did."

The president took to Twitter on Saturday morning to say that the national debt declined by $12 billion in his first month in office compared with a $200 billion increase in Barack Obama’s first month in office. The tweet followed a Fox News segment on which former presidential candidate Herman Cain made the same statement.



Trump’s numbers are accurate. The national debt of $19.9 trillion did decrease $12 billion -- six-hundredths of 1 percent -- from his first day in office until his 30th. It’s also true the debt fluctuates by billions of dollars each day, and the current spending and tax revenue levels that drive those short-term variances were set by the last administration. Trump hasn’t had a chance in his first weeks to change the level of revenue collected through higher taxes or cut federal spending through a new budget.

The $14.4 trillion in debt held by the public, rather than as securities in government trust funds, was $94 million lower on Feb. 21 than on Jan. 20, when Trump was inaugurated. But the following day, the debt level popped back up more than $1 billion due to regular changes in spending and revenue.

“We applaud the president for focusing on the debt as an important metric of success and economic health, but would point out that the improvement this early in his term has to do with normal fluctuations in spending and revenues rather than new policies he has implemented," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

A White House spokesman wasn’t immediately available for comment.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic...-cash-flow

And by the way the uptick in coal is the Met coal or thermal coal ?

[NEWARKCATHOLICFAN]

[Image: https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t...e=59BA4274]