Last election cycle the RNC had to return more donations than any political party ever because they swindled their donors into making multiple, repeating donations that automatically doubled…swindling their own out of millions.
This election cycle that amount they’ve had to return quadrupled, because they continued to use underhanded swindling to get money…this time using Facebook adds to get contacts then texting old people telling them to text Trump to tell him they love him (and in tiny font tell them they make a repeating $25 donation by texting).

Only $28 million left out of $180 they had…and they used much of that money horrifically farming donations….spent $10 for every $1 back! ROTFLMFAHS!!! Some of that $28 million will have to be returned too.
Almost every donator that was swindled is another lost vote for Republicans, most people don’t like being swindled. Trusting Rick Scott with your money is second in stupidity only to trusting Trump with your money! 😂

Also, Republicans are scrambling to remove any references to abortion from their websites, knowing their anti choice positions will sink them. 😂

Guess there is no hope for Trump or the RNC….and happy day they both absolutely hate each other now.

ROEVEMBER IS COMING!

Remember, Trump doesn’t like people like you, he absolutely HATES you. He would never allow you in his club if you’re worth under $25 million, he would certainly never stoop to speak to you or address your concerns. You aren’t his friend, you’re a fool ready to be separated from your money and nothing more to Trump.

Oh yes, I remember last times, 2001 and 2008-9. They've used 96% of cash flow to buy back stock, now they want another. Oddly enough, it's the free market believers that insist they should get more free money instead of letting the market decide, and that's why our airline industry is one of the worst, most despised industries where customer service is non existent. Why waste time serving customers when the government will give you more money for nothing? Not for stocks, cash, promises to keep employees, promises to upgrade aging fleets, just free money. It was a near guarantee they wouldn't improve anything, but CEO compensation would skyrocket....and that's what happened.

I would be ok with bailouts if there were stipulations freezing ANY buybacks or bonuses, requiring improvements in service and planes, and ownership of the companies equal to the bailout amount accepted as collateral that transfers permanently if they don't meet all the stipulations or miss any payments on the loan, no handout. Not going to happen, so neither should a third bailout in under 20 years. Let them fail, service will improve.

IMO, As someone who is successful at life with little to no effort, I'll say luck plays a HUGE part in my success, way more than working hard if that's even a factor.

I own my nice home and 3/4 acre yard outright, and 4 cars, a racecar, a pond I can swim in, solar power, orchard, etc.
Most of the money that bought these things came from the luck of being born into a fairly wealthy family and outliving a few. I broke my back at 31 and essentially retired.
I feel like I'm more successful than most Americans financially and elsewise, with zero debt, multiple assets, a long and stable marriage, etc....and I feel I've put less effort into achieving these things than most people. The only logical explanation I can come up with is luck, including the luck of my birth with decent genes and money for nothing.

Don't focus on prostitutes. Focus on an adorable singing dog. Kids don't care about money for nothing.

Not to be pedantic, but I know enough people who've claimed money has "nothing to do with happiness" literally that I have to counter it.

If you lack the money to keep you, or even more your children nourished or protected from the elements, you will discover there are many reasons for unhappiness that money can aid with. Money in no way grants or guarantees happiness, but there are a lot of things that make you miserable and sad that money can overcome, hungry and homeless children being the most obvious.

Typical liberal trying to twist and combine facts. You are coming off like a pretty big moron. You cant compare Haiti and PR as its a apple/orange situation. Do you know the situation of the infrastructure between the 2? Do you know how the government of each nation reacted? I bet there's a lot of difference between the two.

Also, you dont know how much damage is going to be caused by a hurricane. Why would they ramp up all the services and waste tens of millions of dollars when just a street sign gets blown over? (besides you liberals would then complain about wasting government money for nothing) They knew Katrina and Andrews were coming too but the US government has to wait to see if they are needed.

Also, federal agencies like FEMA have to be requested by the local governments to be there. This is where you guys are such hypocrites. If the military moved into a location and started to take over, you'd be all up in arms about it. Well, FEMA is a federal entity too. They just cant GO into a location if they arent being requested.

As far as the San Juan mayor, here's an article from Oct 1st:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21758/san-juan-mayor-admits-she-hasnt-met-federal-joseph-curl#exit-modal

I bet even with this smoking gun in this incompetent Mayor, who is a Democrat, that you are still going to blame Trump. You people are so sad.

Do you think people only travel for face to face meetings that could be done remotely? No one would waste that kind of money for nothing.

What's been missed is it's a time machine. Leaving Australia for LA, you can arrive almost a day before you left, reminding me of another hypersonic plane's slogan...."when it absolutely, positively had to be there yesterday."

In all your over defense of this overpriced Swiss Army plane, I have yet to see you answer 1)why we would need it considering many of our planes out perform all other nations planes already (contrary to your assertion that "every Russian fighter can out maneuver the F-16", I found that's only partly true against older, non upgraded F-16s ) and 2) how you get around the 'we won't use it much because it's far too expensive to put in danger' argument.
It can't be the best for air superiority if we are too afraid to use them because they cost too much, or if we only have a few, because they cost too much.
What I read (I'm not a pilot) is that air combat is about the kill-loss ratio, where today we expect the losses to be 0.
Again, stealth is NOT 100%, and every method used has eventually been 'cracked'. If it worked every time, I would agree with you. Since it only works until the enemy figures out how, it's not worth $1.3 trillion for ANOTHER stealth fighter, we've already got them.
This plane isn't bullet or missile proof, and will be just as visible and slow when doing real close air support...if it can. I've seen footage of warthogs landing that looked like a whiffle ball they were so full of holes. They're pretty tough.
In 10 years time, I have the feeling that international air superiority will not be our biggest concern. It's good to be prepared, but terrible to bankrupt yourself to meet a challenge that's already met, or a challenge that does not yet, and may never exist. Upgrading our current aircraft would be a MUCH better way to spend that money, and we would get WAY more out of each dollar.
The F-35 may not be in service for 10 years, and may already be obsolete by then (at least it's special systems that make it 'better' than the aircraft we have today). It really seems more like a star wars project, designed to force our 'enemies' to spend themselves into oblivion, but forcing us to the brink in the effort.
Not the "close air support" that the A-10 provides. If this is meant to replace them too, and I think it is, it will have to do what they do, low and slow.

I don't disagree that advanced systems CAN make more difference than slight performance specs, that's no reason to ignore performance, or go backwards. If it's the systems that make the plane perform better, the smart thing would be to put them on the better air frame and have a better plane all around for much cheaper. Simple.

To me, if we spent $1.3 trillion developing and tens of Billions building a fleet of these planes, it's more likely we'll eventually invent a reason to have to use them. Even if we don't, while nice we aren't killing for nothing, we will have wasted that money for nothing, and done it at a time when our debt and poorly used federal funds have the country literally falling apart... that seems more than dumb, it seems criminally insane and treasonous.

Good old biased cop-hating video sift users. Yeah, what a money scheme! Nothing at all to do with enforcing traffic laws. Nope. Not at all.. those drivers that don't stop for people in or at crosswalks are totally the innocent ones here. *sigh*

*music ... nice use of Dire Straits Money for Nothing intro

It's a shame that you're so closed minded to not even hear why and how she's referencing the Bible.

She's noting a parallel of the corruption of money to an old Bible story. I believe the point of this quote isn't about religion, but rather that corruption through money is nothing new.

PS. Oh yeah, I feel obliged to state that I'm an atheist. Otherwise you might disregard my comment too.


>> ^sirex:

I was with it right up to 4:18 when the bible gets dredged up.

Anymore if they can't plainly explain how something works or how they gain profits, which they will have you believe are their "secrets", just assume they are gaming you or someone else and it's all a house of cards waiting to fall.

Earning money doing nothing productive is crazy that should not be supported, yet the government actively helps pass laws to make these things legitimate......hell it looks like something the mafia would do. Except sometimes the mafia takes as little as 1/20th out of it.....these guys are taking 20% and basically crippling everything systematically and infiltrating the government while they hide all their "donations".

Blah.

A. I don't understand how you're arguing we haven't been practicing Keynesian economics since the Great Depression. We've run deficits almost the entire time, lowered interest rates even further during recessions, and enact stimulus when recessions hit in the form of tax rebate checks, income tax cuts to consumers, gov't programs to provide jobs to increase demand, extended unemployment, etc., although we normally do a poor job of running surpluses when we should. But in a nutshell, that is Keynesian economics. And it has worked pretty well overall. Influence of monetarist policies have tamed the Keynesian interventions, but there's little doubt that all the above actions in the last two recessions were born of Keynesian thought.

B. If a business is making $100,000 off your labor, but is paying you $80,000, resulting in a $20,000 profit, why wouldn't they fire you if they could fire someone to do your job for $50,000, resulting in a 250% increase in profit? It does happen. I was the victim of it in 2004.

C. If the devils in the details could be worked out, and that's a big if, I'd be in favor of having stipulations to unemployment benefits. But you got a lot of issues you'd have to deal with. What if the person on unemployment has kids? You're gonna deny them welfare if the kids would starve? Very complicated issue as just one example.

I do think though we need in this age better education to retrain workers for the new jobs that come into the US as jobs get outsourced to other countries.

D. About the FDIC... First off, you're saying that people could check the banks' ability to make too risky of loans, but it's a whole other thing to say FDIC insurance encourages bad lending. It's simply not true. Again, regardless if deposits are insured or not, banks will go under if they make risky loans regardless of deposit insurance for consumers in most cases. Again, bailouts are a whole other issue. As for people checking the banks for bad lending, that's a pipe dream. The general consumer has no clue what are good or bad loans overall, nor the time to monitor the lending practices of banks. Hell, BANKERS didn't understand the crap they got themselves into in the mortgage crisis until it was too late, and they're professionals in the field. It's not a practical solution. On top of all that, the FDIC does in some ways help to ensure baseline qualities of banks. Not every bank can be FDIC insured, and many of the regulations FDIC insist upon make the banks more solvent, etc. So when consumers insist the bank is FDIC insured, they're insuring their deposits as well as guaranteeing a minimal level of integrity in the bank itself.

Lastly, I'm totally down with reasoned dialogue, even from points of view I completely oppose. I'm not slamming this guy because he's a conservative. I'm slamming him because he made ridiculous claims that are obviously factually inaccurate. Ideology shouldn't blind people from obvious fact that don't fit.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.
First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?
Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.
I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.
I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).
Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

@heropsycho

I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.


However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.

First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.


Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?

Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.


And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.

I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.


Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.

I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).

Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

So, does this guy just have an unlimited amount of money and nothing but free time or what?


Russians sell lots of weapons to whoever wants them. So I would guess he is on the job.