Biden promises there will be a cure for cancer if he’s elected

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i asked spence if he was ok with a presidential candidate providing false hope ( in the form
of a promised cure) to sick people, if he was ok with biden politicizing the cure for cancer. he hasn’t been back in these parts since.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your premise isn’t worthy of a response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Your premise isn’t worthy of a response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your response isn't worthy of a premise.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your premise isn’t worthy of a response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ah. in other words, i’ve got you but you aren’t honest enough to admit it, so you don’t want to talk about it.

He promised a cure for cancer, only if he is elected. that’s exactly what he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Promising a cure is beyond stupid, promising to insure research is ramped up, would have been more appropriate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Trump 2020, the president you all deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

I wonder if Biden will promise to cure creepy old men groping women and little girls...if you want to be amused watch his interview on THE VIEW when he turns into a puddle before the dingbats

[PaulS]

If the Republicans believed in higher education they probably.understand what he meant.

For two years the Republicans have been saying that you shouldn't listen to Trump's words but rather what he means. Another instance of the Republican hypocrisy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If the Republicans believed in higher education they probably.understand what he meant.

For two years the Republicans have been saying that you shouldn't listen to Trump's words but rather what he means. Another instance of the Republican hypocrisy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

republicans don't believe in higher education?

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

republicans don't believe in higher education?

Just more stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Just more stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As usual, nothing to add says the snowflake who couldn't take the things people on this forum said about Trump so decided to start posting here.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As usual, nothing to add says the snowflake who couldn't take the things people on this forum said about Trump so decided to start posting here.

I call it like I see it, sorry. Keep posting, it is always entertaining.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

republicans don't believe in higher education?

They certainly criticize colleges constantly and the further right a school is generally it is not as good as a left leaning school.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They certainly criticize colleges constantly and the further right a school is generally it is not as good as a left leaning school.

which means republicans don't believe in higher education??

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

which means republicans don't believe in higher education??

They certainly don't support higher education to the same extent as the Dems. do.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They certainly criticize colleges constantly and the further right a school is generally it is not as good as a left leaning school.

Did you ever ask yourself if a lot of it is deserved? College campuses have been losing there minds the past few years.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Did you ever ask yourself if a lot of it is deserved? College campuses have been losing there minds the past few years.

It is bc conservatives don't like science and the schools piss conserv. off bc of that? Conserv. didn't support colleges as much as liberals far longer than the past few years.

[The Dad Fisherman]

You can't teach those who don't want to learn.

Teachers arent the problem

[Pete F.]

Both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system. Fix that, I believed, and we could cure much of what ails America.
Nope, Nick Hanauer wrote an article in the latest issue of the Atlantic that he feels explains why not.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...enough/590611/

[The Dad Fisherman]

Is America's Education system failing, or is it American's failing to take advantage of the Education System?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Is America's Education system failing, or is it American's failing to take advantage of the Education System?

both. but more the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Is America's Education system failing, or is it American's failing to take advantage of the Education System?

Neither, it's being able to take advantage.
I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence of this family did well despite......
But society as a whole changes incrementally and things have changed over the last 50 years.

These are a few relevant paragraphs from the article I linked above, and will link here again: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...enough/590611/

What I’ve realized, decades late, is that educationism is tragically misguided. American workers are struggling in large part because they are underpaid—and they are underpaid because 40 years of trickle-down policies have rigged the economy in favor of wealthy people like me. Americans are more highly educated than ever before, but despite that, and despite nearly record-low unemployment, most American workers—at all levels of educational attainment—have seen little if any wage growth since 2000.

Meanwhile, nearly all the benefits of economic growth have been captured by large corporations and their shareholders. After-tax corporate profits have doubled from about 5 percent of GDP in 1970 to about 10 percent, even as wages as a share of GDP have fallen by roughly 8 percent. And the wealthiest 1 percent’s share of pre-tax income has more than doubled, from 9 percent in 1973 to 21 percent today. Taken together, these two trends amount to a shift of more than $2 trillion a year from the middle class to corporations and the super-rich.

Today, after wealthy elites gobble up our outsize share of national income, the median American family is left with $76,000 a year. Had hourly compensation grown with productivity since 1973—as it did over the preceding quarter century, according to the Economic Policy Institute—that family would now be earning more than $105,000 a year. Just imagine, education reforms aside, how much larger and stronger and better educated our middle class would be if the median American family enjoyed a $29,000-a-year raise.

We have confused a symptom—educational inequality—with the underlying disease: economic inequality. Schooling may boost the prospects of individual workers, but it doesn’t change the core problem, which is that the bottom 90 percent is divvying up a shrinking share of the national wealth. Fixing that problem will require wealthy people to not merely give more, but take less.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Is America's Education system failing, or is it American's failing to take advantage of the Education System?

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Neither

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

i taught in an economically challenged city, and i taught in an insanely wealthy city. One thing i learned without a doubt, is that money is very, very overrated when it comes to raising happy productive kids.

poor kids from living stable homes, are a million times better off, than wealthy kids from chaotic homes. There is no comparison. None.

Fix families and our values and the things we prioritize in our culture, and the rest takes care of itself. spend your time obsessing about the material things beyond your grasp, and you’re doomed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Missed the next sentences.

Both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system. Fix that, I believed, and we could cure much of what ails America.
Nope, Nick Hanauer wrote an article in the latest issue of the Atlantic that he feels explains why not.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Missed the next sentences.

Both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system. Fix that, I believed, and we could cure much of what ails America.
Nope, Nick Hanauer wrote an article in the latest issue of the Atlantic that he feels explains why not.

I didn't miss them, you said America's education system was failing, I asked was it the system that was failing or the people failing to use it. Then you said neither.

The other stuff you posted was really just white noise to what I responded to.

[Jim in CT]

Pete, why is income inequality bad? if bill gates stops working, or if he burns all of his money, is anyone better off?

we need to help
those at the bottom, i agree. their salvation comes nit from confiscating what others have and giving it to them, but in helping them to help themselves.

Income inequality is complete bullsh*t unless you believe that aggregate wealth is finite. Do you believe that if Gates earns $1m today, that means there’s $1m less for the rest of us? if you believe that you’re an ignoramus, if you don’t believe it then you shouldn’t worry about income inequality. those with money, have an easier time
making more
money, that’s basic mathematical reality, it’s not bad, you can’t stop it and there’s no reason to try.

rich people
aren’t causing anyone else’s poverty ( most of the time). you solve a problem by addressing the cause, and one persons poverty is t caused by another persons
wealth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

rich people
aren’t causing anyone else’s poverty

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

have you seen California lately????

[scottw]

oh good....

The New York State Assembly on Wednesday passed legislation granting illegal immigrants the right to obtain a driver’s license by presenting foreign documentation.

The “Green Light” bill, which passed 86–50 along party lines, must now pass the state senate before moving to the desk of Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo, who has said he would sign it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, why is income inequality bad? if bill gates stops working, or if he burns all of his money, is anyone better off?

we need to help
those at the bottom, i agree. their salvation comes nit from confiscating what others have and giving it to them, but in helping them to help themselves.

Income inequality is complete bullsh*t unless you believe that aggregate wealth is finite. Do you believe that if Gates earns $1m today, that means there’s $1m less for the rest of us? if you believe that you’re an ignoramus, if you don’t believe it then you shouldn’t worry about income inequality. those with money, have an easier time
making more
money, that’s basic mathematical reality, it’s not bad, you can’t stop it and there’s no reason to try.

rich people
aren’t causing anyone else’s poverty ( most of the time). you solve a problem by addressing the cause, and one persons poverty is t caused by another persons
wealth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim,
It's not poverty that is the problem, it's the shrinking of opportunity for people.
Its because nearly all the benefits of economic growth have been captured by large corporations and their shareholders.
Controlling the flow of capital so that you can capture incrementally more is how you win and the middle class has no chance in that game.
If you do it long enough you control the banks, the means of production and distribution and the government. Forty years ago when I was in my twenties I could call the loan officer at the local bank and get a loan, today that same bank is part of a large corporation with little involvement in the community. That holds true for almost everything we buy today, from fishing equipment to groceries and clothes.
This happened in the Gilded Age and history is repeating, it does that.
Corporations buy up profitable small businesses, reduce management costs per unit and buy more small businesses.
Then they start on each other.
The number of publicly traded corporations has been reduced greatly in the past twenty years, roughly by half.
Corporations have been gobbling up their competition for the past twenty years. The easiest way to control the market is eliminate your competition and the easiest example is any of the FAANG who buy anyone who could compete.
The vast majority of shares are held by the wealthiest people in the US. After-tax corporate profits have doubled from about 5 percent of GDP in 1970 to about 10 percent, even as wages as a share of GDP have fallen by roughly 8 percent. And the wealthiest 1 percent’s share of pre-tax income has more than doubled, from 9 percent in 1973 to 21 percent today. Taken together, these two trends amount to a shift of more than $2 trillion a year from the middle class to corporations and the super-rich.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim,

it's the shrinking of opportunity for people.

this is insanity