A message from Elizabeth

No, I didn't leave it out.

The two budgets are called differently because they are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. The US has little choice in paying its Interest Debts in the Mandatory Budget.

Political policy is found in the Discretionary Budget. Look up the word.

It is the former (Discretionary Budget) that reacts far, far more to direct political policy than the Mandatory Budget. One might say that the Mandatory Budget pays for the sins of the Discretionary Budget - especially for a country that "thinks" the dollar rules the world.

Uncle Sam has a whopping lesson to learn about budgets and the fact that when people no longer feel as secure holding dollar T-notes as, say, EU-bonds, then it is going to see its debt-costs skyrocket far, far beyond the past ten-years (which was bad enough).

To wit,


Read the handwriting on THAT wall ... !

PS: And Donald Dork lowered yet-again upper-income taxation from those most able to render to the government what-is-not-really-theirs and thus pay-off that humongously towering debt!

 

I find it hard to believe that the gender of a candidate is sufficient to address the issues you've raised. Further, what a decidedly low opinion of the world you must have, and an equally low set of expectations of those in our nation. The stalwart single mom, slaving away at minimum wage raising the kids all by herself... What a stupid narrative. Not because it doesn't happen, but because of the set of assumptions baked into it. "single mom" "minimum wage"..like these are somehow a requirement? Why? Where is the accountability? Would it be any different if it were a married couple on minimum wage? Why not?

 

Down boy.

They are simply prime-examples and more prevalent than you think. Here is the statistical info on Incomes per population percentile in the US:


The Poverty Threshold (for a family of four) in the US is at an annual income of $25K. Looking at the above, that means that nearly 25% of American families are "statistically poor". That is, 126 million households are living below the Poverty Threshold.

Our minimum wage is $7.25/hour, or $15K a year. It is NOWHERE NEAR the Poverty Threshold annual income necessary to sustain a family at $25K!

Which would require a Legal National Minimum Wage of around $12/hour!

If you've got numbers other than those shown above, I'd like to see them ...

 

Ok, so, taking your advise, making a choice to have a family without the ability to financially sustain them is what? child abuse? Why continue to tolerate the behavior that ends up putting the kids at risk to this level of poverty then? Similarly, the idea that minimum wage also translates into zero job skills also seems to be problematic here.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Who thinks about supporting a child before its born? About 1% of the population. The rest just make-do and how well they do depends upon their qualifications. Which means, for the most part of us, their level of educational attainment.

Unless, of course, "daddy" is already a billionaire.

For far too many, however, they will live the lives of their parents. But, as I never tire of saying, we have begun a New Age - that of Information. The Industrial Age is way behind us - it started shipping out in the the 1990s when the Bamboo Curtain came crashing down ...

Not "here" in Europe. Tertiary education is easily attainable because it is a "human right". Like Healthcare.

You see, it all depends upon where one is "coming from", and in the US the prime ingredient for measuring success is highly singular - it's muney, muney, muney.

If your parents have some, you get a decent education. If your parents have a lot, you need not even work.

But, if neither of the above holds, you live a life that could be even worse than your parents.

The economic equation has changed fundamentally - the losers will remain below the Poverty Threshold and the winners (who managed to get an advanced skill-set education) will do very well indeed ...

 

Thanks for the opinion. But I don't vote and won't start now. Warren is an ignorant crackpot and angry woman. She would make a great candidate to go against Trump. I have no problem with a woman president but Warren isn't going to be one.

 

I don't think that it is, necessarily, time for a female president. But it is time for one who understands the plight of the poor. Who knows that, by raising them up, the entire country benefits. It's time for a president that cares about the health and welfare of the country, not politics.

 

There is not now nor has there ever been a free market,someoneALWAYS has the fix in,their thumb on the scales or some other illicit method of cheating.Businesses colluding together to fix salaries and agreeing not to poach each others talent,price fixing etc etc.

 

Here's more:

 

All Democrats know how to do is tax and spend. Thanks but no thanks. And Warren is not worthy to be the first female president.

 

Thank you for our daily-dose of commentary BILGE.

We really get too much of it around here. Do you know what a DEBATE FORUM means? What it DOES NOT MEAN is that it is not a depository of useless and boringly salacious one-liner sarcasm ...

 

Too bad she sold her political soul to Hillary!
I liked her as I liked Bernie until that confusion.
Warren could have run on her own and challenge Hillaryism.
Warren could have supported Bernie Sanders and did not.
Too bad she sold her political soul to Hillary.

The important difference between Hillaryism and Sanders is
who pays for all those wonderful social programs. ObamaCare demonstrates, Working People pay. Where is Lizzy in all this? Use to sound good but, lost it supporting Hillary.




BTW I forgive her the native American thing.
I know a Mexican American family whose four kids all became professionals.
They claimed it was because father's mother was Jewish.
Along comes 23AndMe and father has the least "Jewish".
Northern Mexicans run 0.3-0.5% Ashkenazi. Probably Sephardim cross over genome.
So I believe a family may maintain a lore that later comes into scientific dispute.

 

This is a joke is it not? How about the criteria being who is qualified not whether or not you have a front hole.