The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
mtierney said:
remember when Romney was but one GOP candidate out of 17 or so? We had resorted to many “silly” things to knock out wannabes! The size of hands, ears,
Will pause here — gotta get to church!
Romney wasn't one of the 17 in 2016
I think it’s being confused with the number of passengers in the Romney station wagon.
DaveSchmidt said:
I think it’s being confused with the number of passengers in the Romney station wagon.
Including the roof?
RealityForAll said:
drummerboy said:The pay-as-you-go* method for funding USPS retirement benefits prevents/ameliorates creation of unfunded liabilities for USPS pensions and healthcare of USPS retirees. My memory is that you have advocated the pay-as-you-go method for funding NJ government pensions. Please let me know if my memory serves me correctly.
gaaa - the PO "loses money" because they are forced (by Congress - 2006) to pre-fund retirement benefits in a way required by NO OTHER business. It's right there in your pics.
If not for that clearly political attempt to destroy it, it would probably be profitable.
*- historically social security has largely been a transfer payment. When SS was created, the idea was that workers and their employers would make employment tax payments that would be used to fund payments to the elderly and disabled at that point in time. In 1986 or thereabouts, the SS employment tax rate was increased markedly. Thereby, creating a surplus of SS receipts which lasted until about 2011. Thus, SS had a bit of a pay-as-you-go component from 1986 to 2011 (about 25 years). Since 2011, SS has had negative cash flow (the combination of money transferred to beneficiaries plus operating expenses exceeds cash-flow coming in).
Your posts indicate that your knowledge of what you're talking about is a quite limited and mostly wrong, and I really don't have the time or inclination to educate you. e.g. you clearly don't know how the SS surplus was supposed to work.
But apparently you have no issue with the fact that the USPS is the only organization in the US that is forced to have this accounting method. (and I have no clue what you're talking about regarding NJ pensions. funding pensions adequately is one thing and is the proper thing to do, but that is not what the USPS is being forced to do. )
mtierney said:
remember when Romney was but one GOP candidate out of 17 or so? We had resorted to many “silly” things to knock out wannabes! The size of hands, ears,
Will pause here — gotta get to church!
I
Romney ran in 2012, I know, but somehow or other he appears to be our perennial candidate, so I stuck him with the gang. Gail Collins has already revisited the dog on the roof tale.
l’ll no doubt skip someone, but I know you will correct me.
Santorum — too pious
Fiorina — my fav, but what a cat fight it would have been
Christie — we can all agree he had issues ( can you imagine the fat jokes)
Graham — too nice and too Southern
Paul — his father would have his VP
Carson — he was too soft spoken and kind but what an amazing backstory!
Perry — great looking but again we already know the snide remarks
Jindal? — (auto correct makes it Kindle) he would have been probably spared ethnic jokes
The list goes on, but you know the rest...
While in church, did you forget the point you were trying to make? Because you certainly lost me
I don't know, LOST. It's said that they had to pull into a service station to hose the doggie diarrhea from the roof. That's an unpleasant image.
And let's not forget Gail Collins, whose running gag was mentioning the dog story in every one of her Mitt columns.
gerritin, I guess I did! Or, after Mass, I was a better person.
But, the truth be told, the comments I offered on the wannabes do reflect the silliness in much of the political criticism/craziness which is the norm now. I think because we are such visual people, we have lost the ability to listen.
There is a fine line between being funny and being mean-spirited.
mtierney said:
gerritin, I guess I did! Or, after Mass, I was a better person.
But, the truth be told, the comments I offered on the wannabes do reflect the silliness in much of the political criticism/craziness which is the norm now. I think because we are such visual people, we have lost the ability to listen.
There is a fine line between being funny and being mean-spirited.
actually not. Sometimes it's possible to be funny AND mean-spirited. Sometimes the targets deserve to be treated in a mean-spirited way. The president has spent a lifetime being cruel to people he disagrees with. So imho, he's fair game for anything anyone wants to say about him. And if it's funny all the better.
Why would a man who for example calls women "pigs" and "dogs" deserve to be treated with respect?
I could never condone the vulgarity heard in much conversation these days. I personally try my best to monitor my speech or written words. I am not a Pollyanna at all — sometimes I “think” a salty term, but I struggle to come up with another expression.
As far as DJT in the role of President, folks really should not be shocked. He was a very well known individual for decades — peccadillos, etc.
However, much of the hate-spewed speech broadcast against Trump is doing exactly what he is faulted for. Responding in kind.
As I often told my kids, ad nauseum, as was pointed out to me, two wrongs don’t make a right! (But two Wrights can make an airplane!)
Edit to correct spelling
mtierney said:
I could never condone the vulgarity heard in much conversation these days. I personally try my best to monitor my speech or written words. I am not a Pollyanna at all — sometimes I “think” a salty term, but I struggle to come up with another expression.
As far as DJT in the role of President, folks really should not be shocked. He was a very well known individual for decades — peccadillos, etc.
However, much of the hate-spewed speech broadcast against Trump is doing exactly what he is faulted for. Responding in kind.
As I often told my kids, ad nauseum, as was pointed out to me, two wrongs don’t make a right! (But two Wights can make an airplane!)
actually responding in kind to a bully is exactly what a person should do.
mtierney said:
As far as DJT in the role of President, folks really should not be shocked. He was a very well known individual for decades — peccadillos, etc.
In other words, "Familiarity breeds consent" to his behavior.
To hell with civility: Enough with the pity party for Mitch McConnell
The guy who confronted McConnell in a restaurant last week was in part upset that McConnell is promising cuts in Social Security. That is true. McConnell indeed said he wants to do that. So what is worse in the within the sense of a higher morality? Taking money away from senior citizens who need it to live, or making the senate majority leader uncomfortable during his dinner?
The GOP is pursuing a host of truly cruel policies, but what we're supposed to really be upset about is liberals saying mean things? Please.
mtierney said:
I could never condone the vulgarity heard in much conversation these days. I personally try my best to monitor my speech or written words. I am not a Pollyanna at all — sometimes I “think” a salty term, but I struggle to come up with another expression.
As far as DJT in the role of President, folks really should not be shocked. He was a very well known individual for decades — peccadillos, etc.
However, much of the hate-spewed speech broadcast against Trump is doing exactly what he is faulted for. Responding in kind.
As I often told my kids, ad nauseum, as was pointed out to me, two wrongs don’t make a right! (But two Wights can make an airplane!)
So what precisely is your point? When DJT made fun of a disabled person, and some citizen called him a bad word for it, they are of equal moral standing? Because I certainly do not agree with that.
Why do you think everything should be tit for tat? If someone points our one of DJT's many faults, why do you always think you then need to also point out that some Democrat also has faults? Whether you are right or wrong is not even the issue, but why do you feel it is necessary? Do you think it is funny because you get under people's skins?, or do you think this is a good way to argue?, or are you insecure? or do you just not want to accept any criticism of DJT?
mtierney said:
As far as DJT in the role of President, folks really should not be shocked. He was a very well known individual for decades — peccadillos, etc.
He was very well known to those in the NY-NJ area and known to others outside the area as a guy with a TV Show. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of voters knew almost nothing about him until he decided to run for President. I do not know why anyone who knew about his real history would have voted for him over the other Republican candidates.
I believe that a % of his voters believed that he was acting as a candidate trying to beat the others but that once he was President he would act differently.
LOST said:
I believe that a % of his voters believed that he was acting as a candidate trying to beat the others but that once he was President he would act differently.
Trump himself said he would act differently if elected President (and his voters believed it.)
gerritin
“Why do you think everything should be tit for tat? If someone points our one of DJT's many faults, why do you always think you then need to also point out that some Democrat also has faults? Whether you are right or wrong is not even the issue, but why do you feel it is necessary? Do you think it is funny because you get under people's skins?, or do you think this is a good way to argue?, or are you insecure? or do you just not want to accept any criticism of DJT?”
No
I have never met a person who could resist smiling at kittens or puppies — in real life or in photos. The conversation about trade war complexities, however, overwhelms the mind, yet is politically explosive.
So, I believe this account is powerful — involving threatened furbabies — an issue to which we can all relate —or sink our teeth into. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/business/china-pet-food-trade-war.html
mtierney said:
I have never met a person who could resist smiling at kittens or puppies — in real life or in photos. The conversation about trade war complexities, however, overwhelms the mind, yet is politically explosive.
Which is why politicians like to appeal to simple minds with simple issues like abortion or dangerous Mexican or threats to white male privilege.
mtierney said:
I have never met a person who could resist smiling at kittens or puppies — in real life or in photos. The conversation about trade war complexities, however, overwhelms the mind, yet is politically explosive.
So, I believe this account is powerful — involving threatened furbabies — an issue to which we can all relate —or sink our teeth into.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/business/china-pet-food-trade-war.html
As this story demonstrates, while the United States has an intrusive, paternalistic, some say socialist government intrusion into and regulation of food standards, that affects even pets, China has pure freedom for its people and its food sellers.
nohero said:
mtierney said:As this story demonstrates, while the United States has an intrusive, paternalistic, some say socialist government intrusion into and regulation of food standards, that affects even pets, China has pure freedom for its people and its food sellers.
I have never met a person who could resist smiling at kittens or puppies — in real life or in photos. The conversation about trade war complexities, however, overwhelms the mind, yet is politically explosive.
So, I believe this account is powerful — involving threatened furbabies — an issue to which we can all relate —or sink our teeth into.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/business/china-pet-food-trade-war.html
Makes me pine for pre-FDA America.
tjohn said:
nohero said:Makes me pine for pre-FDA America.
mtierney said:As this story demonstrates, while the United States has an intrusive, paternalistic, some say socialist government intrusion into and regulation of food standards, that affects even pets, China has pure freedom for its people and its food sellers.
I have never met a person who could resist smiling at kittens or puppies — in real life or in photos. The conversation about trade war complexities, however, overwhelms the mind, yet is politically explosive.
So, I believe this account is powerful — involving threatened furbabies — an issue to which we can all relate —or sink our teeth into.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/business/china-pet-food-trade-war.html
cool. I can get me some patent medicine!
ml1 said:
tjohn said:cool. I can get me some patent medicine!
nohero said:Makes me pine for pre-FDA America.
mtierney said:As this story demonstrates, while the United States has an intrusive, paternalistic, some say socialist government intrusion into and regulation of food standards, that affects even pets, China has pure freedom for its people and its food sellers.
I have never met a person who could resist smiling at kittens or puppies — in real life or in photos. The conversation about trade war complexities, however, overwhelms the mind, yet is politically explosive.
So, I believe this account is powerful — involving threatened furbabies — an issue to which we can all relate —or sink our teeth into.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/business/china-pet-food-trade-war.html
I like the elixirs with uranium salts.
https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-08/healthy-glow-drink-radiation
mtierney said:
I have never met a person who could resist smiling at kittens or puppies — in real life or in photos.
It is my understanding that the current occupant of the White House is the first one to have no pet.
Sorry, I forgot about Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and Chester A. Arthur, but so do most people.
https://www.factmonster.com/science/animals/presidential-pets
let’s take a poll on which dog breed DJT might select — or a cat.
Don’t be super critical, however, whatever breed would win would most likely be a MOLer’s fur-baby!
mtierney said:
let’s take a poll on which dog breed DJT might select — or a cat.
I would pick "None" for what kind of pet he'd pick.
South_Mountaineer said:
mtierney said:I would pick "None" for what kind of pet he'd pick.
let’s take a poll on which dog breed DJT might select — or a cat.
Also, I wouldn't let that psychopath near a pet. He'd need an endless supply of the same breed to keep bringing out after fury-kicking the previous one to death.
ridski said:
South_Mountaineer said:Also, I wouldn't let that psychopath near a pet. He'd need an endless supply of the same breed to keep bringing out after fury-kicking the previous one to death.
mtierney said:I would pick "None" for what kind of pet he'd pick.
let’s take a poll on which dog breed DJT might select — or a cat.
No, he'd have the Greatest Dog/Cat ever!
But he's not limited to dogs and cats. Check out the pets of John Quincy Adams.
remember when Romney was but one GOP candidate out of 17 or so? We had resorted to many “silly” things to knock out wannabes! The size of hands, ears,
Will pause here — gotta get to church!
I
Romney ran in 2012, I know, but somehow or other he appears to be our perennial candidate, so I stuck him with the gang. Gail Collins has already revisited the dog on the roof tale.
l’ll no doubt skip someone, but I know you will correct me.
Santorum — too pious
Fiorina — my fav, but what a cat fight it would have been
Christie — we can all agree he had issues ( can you imagine the fat jokes)
Graham — too nice and too Southern
Paul — his father would have his VP
Carson — he was too soft spoken and kind but what an amazing backstory!
Perry — great looking but again we already know the snide remarks
Jindal? — (auto correct makes it Kindle) he would have been probably spared ethnic jokes
The list goes on, but you know the rest...