Is Joe Biden done? I hope so.

[Earthborn]

Ha! Another! Sanders is 78. Biden is 76!

Biden is no spring chicken, but to claim he is 241730089957185930126657982161685456183383914792221709701601
02345664667224301768245099102208000000000000000000 times older than Bernie I think is a slight exaggeration.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Hey, that's millions fewer jobs created!

Evidence?

 

[Belz...]

Evidence?

They're job creators! Given them more money, and they'll hire more people, get it?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well, you can create a million jobs that pay $1,000/month, or one job that pays 1 billon/month.
Amounts to pretty much the same.

 

[acbytesla]

Hey, that's millions fewer jobs created!

Says who? Them?

 

[Belz...]

Says who? Them?

I have it on good authority that tax cuts would trickle down.

 

[acbytesla]

I have it on good authority that tax cuts would trickle down.

My mistake.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have it on good authority that tax cuts would trickle down.

Like santorum down a chubby orange thigh.

 

[Cainkane1]

Joe's star seems to be falling. I like Joe. In terms of his politics, I think he's the best Democratic candidate. Liberal, but pragmatic. Just my kind of guy, except for his birthdate. I just don't want to vote for someone that old.

I don't want to vote for Warren or Sanders or Trump for the same reasons, and more, but they aren't quite as old as Biden.

But, Sanders is a guy who's too far left to actually identify as a Democrat. (I think he calls himself an "independent who caucuses with the Democrats" still in the Senate.) I don't want to vote for an avowed socialist. So, Warren? Still has the age problem, just not as bad as Biden, but she's stumbling all over herself promising to give away other people's money. She can provide free college and free health care and forgive student loans and all she has to do is raise taxes, but only a little bit and only on other people. That kind of fibbing would be an automatic disqualification in my book....except that if she gets the nomination she'll be running against Trump. Even if it were some other Republican, they would be telling the "if we cut taxes we'll get more money" fib, because you can't get the GOP nomination without telling that lie these days.

So, in an ironic twist, Joe's had some stumbles and may get caught up in someone else's scandal. His polls have dropped lately. He looks old. He might be on his way out.

I hope so, because unless he gets out soon, there's no way that a more moderate candidate, like Klobuchar, has any chance of sneaking in. If he gets out of the way, a younger candidate might be able to grab the middle lane, which is what I hope happens. Otherwise, I would have a choice between a socialist or Trump, which means I would have to vote for the socialist, and if the Dem wins, the only chance for divided government would have me rooting for a GOP senate victory.

Divided government is what I really want, so I suppose Trump as president with a united opposition congress would not be incredibly awful, but the "Trump as president" part really sticks in my craw.

I'm going to vote for Trump flaws and all. I wish Ted Cruz had won the Republican nomination rather than TRump but since Trump won I'll stick with him.

 

[Belz...]

My mistake.

The US is not a country of haves and have-nots, but one of haves and soon-to-haves. I have that from a similar authority.

 

[Belz...]

I'm going to vote for Trump flaws and all. I wish Ted Cruz had won the Republican nomination rather than TRump but since Trump won I'll stick with him.

May I ask why? Out of curiosity, that is.

 

[acbytesla]

The US is not a country of haves and have-nots, but one of haves and soon-to-haves. I have that from a similar authority.

When will I get mine? The clock is ticking.

 

[BobTheCoward]

When will I get mine? The clock is ticking.

You have more than the vast majority of humanity in all of human history. Now you are just greedy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When will I get mine? The clock is ticking.

"But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step!" Philip J Fry true voice of america.

 

[Belz...]

When will I get mine? The clock is ticking.

Dude, I don't know. I'm Canadian. We're all Haves, here.

 

[theprestige]

Evidence?

That's the thing about jobs. Nobody actually knows how they're created. Some people think that raising taxes creates jobs. Some people think that freeing up investment capital creates jobs. Some people think that building a bridge or a telephone network creates jobs.* But the reality is that nobody knows just what-all goes into creating a job, or how to measure it, or if it's even possible to create jobs at all. Maybe jobs just happen.

Anyway, the point isn't the alleged job creation (or lack thereof). The point is: We need money. They have money. So we're going to take their money. What are we going to spend it on? Who knows? Job creation? Hookers and blow? Kickbacks? Doesn't matter. What matters is, whatever we do with the money it's still better than letting them do things with it.


---
*Obviously the building of the bridge or the network means jobs for the builders. Some people think that the existence of these things creates additional jobs, beyond the jobs of building these things.

 

[acbytesla]

"But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step!" Philip J Fry true voice of america.

There you go.

 

[acbytesla]

That's the thing about jobs. Nobody actually knows how they're created. Some people think that raising taxes creates jobs. Some people think that freeing up investment capital creates jobs. Some people think that building a bridge or a telephone network creates jobs.* But the reality is that nobody knows just what-all goes into creating a job, or how to measure it, or if it's even possible to create jobs at all. Maybe jobs just happen.

Anyway, the point isn't the alleged job creation (or lack thereof). The point is: We need money. They have money. So we're going to take their money. What are we going to spend it on? Who knows? Job creation? Hookers and blow? Kickbacks? Doesn't matter. What matters is, whatever we do with the money it's still better than letting them do things with it.
---
*Obviously the building of the bridge or the network means jobs for the builders. Some people think that the existence of these things creates additional jobs, beyond the jobs of building these things.

Jobs are created by demand. Period.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Jobs are created by demand. Period.

 

[Belz...]

That's the thing about jobs. Nobody actually knows how they're created. Some people think that raising taxes creates jobs. Some people think that freeing up investment capital creates jobs. Some people think that building a bridge or a telephone network creates jobs.* But the reality is that nobody knows just what-all goes into creating a job, or how to measure it, or if it's even possible to create jobs at all. Maybe jobs just happen.

Anyway, the point isn't the alleged job creation (or lack thereof). The point is: We need money. They have money. So we're going to take their money. What are we going to spend it on? Who knows? Job creation? Hookers and blow? Kickbacks? Doesn't matter. What matters is, whatever we do with the money it's still better than letting them do things with it.


---
*Obviously the building of the bridge or the network means jobs for the builders. Some people think that the existence of these things creates additional jobs, beyond the jobs of building these things.

Jobs are created by demand. Period.

Sounds like Liberals know how jobs are created better than conservatives do.