Louisiana indicts N.Y. doctor charged with prescribing abortion pills to Louisiana girl ; first criminal case of a doctor since Roe

Landon Caeli said:

It's just not that simple to me. The complex changes that occur over time tend to change the order of our priorities.

...I think it's too simple minded to say that those with less than me are always and forever the top priority in my decision-making.

Click to expand...

What role does Jesus Christ play in your life?

-CryptoLutheran

Landon Caeli said:

Biblical times were pre-democracy and pre-Christian influence.

In the United States, the poor are taken care of. Nobody is starving to death, or malnourished. Now compare today's United States to the times where Jesus lived in Nazareth, and you'll see that the situations between then and here now are not quite the same.

How much care for the poor is too much, when we consider that our poor have food cards, cell phones and free public transportation?

Now If a hungry person asks me for food on the street, I will buy them a meal, but I *do not* feel obligated to vote with a primary focus on the poor, especially when my conscience tells me there's a way to turn the poor into the middle class with certain policies that I believe in.

Click to expand...

If Republican policies help the poor turn into the middle class, as you allege without any references, then why has income inequality been growing so drastically since the Reagan Era? Why is the middle class shrinking, and why are more people falling into poverty?
The first reason began with Reagan's union busting. The growth of labor unions in America brought many people into the middle class. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, a factory worker could own a home and one salary could support a family. It hasn't been that way for decades.
Tax rates for much higher for the very wealthy then but there were also a lot of loopholes. The death knell for the middle class began when Reagan started the first of a series of tax cuts which primarily benefited the rich. Our national debt soared with each round of tax cuts by Reagan, George W Bush, and now Trump. As our national debt soared the scape goat became the people who needed help most.
Instead of shared sacrifice, the goodies for the rich were paid for by hungry children, neglected disabled, those trapped in the ghettos and dying small towns.
'Blame the victims' demagogues gained hold, and we traded our consciences and morality for empty promises.
America doubled down on income inequality this week.

Fantine said:

If Republican policies help the poor turn into the middle class, as you allege without any references, then why has income inequality been growing so drastically since the Reagan Era? Why is the middle class shrinking, and why are more people falling into poverty?
The first reason began with Reagan's union busting. The growth of labor unions in America brought many people into the middle class. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, a factory worker could own a home and one salary could support a family. It hasn't been that way for decades.
Tax rates for much higher for the very wealthy then but there were also a lot of loopholes. The death knell for the middle class began when Reagan started the first of a series of tax cuts which primarily benefited the rich. Our national debt soared with each round of tax cuts by Reagan, George W Bush, and now Trump. As our national debt soared the scape goat became the people who needed help most.
Instead of shared sacrifice, the goodies for the rich were paid for by hungry children, neglected disabled, those trapped in the ghettos and dying small towns.
'Blame the victims' demagogues gained hold, and we traded our consciences and morality for empty promises.
America doubled down on income inequality this week.

Click to expand...

Funny, I was just informed last week, by two left leaning posters, that tax money in no way, ever, helps the economy. But you're telling me the opposite, that lowering taxes on the rich somehow hurts the economy.

Aside from that, Reagan didn't even try to keep jobs in America, unlike Trump's policies. Bringing the manufacturing back home is exactly how we pull the poor back into the middle class where they belong. We want a return to the way it was back in the 50's and 60's, where sustainable jobs are easy to come by. In the meantime, the democrats are fighting tooth and nail to prevent exactly what it is you want.

Landon Caeli said:

Funny, I was just informed last week, by two left leaning posters, that tax money in no way, ever, helps the economy. But you're telling me the opposite, that lowering taxes on the rich somehow hurts the economy.

Aside from that, Reagan didn't even try to keep jobs in America, unlike Trump's policies. Bringing the manufacturing back home is exactly how we pull the poor back into the middle class where they belong. We want a return to the way it was back in the 50's and 60's, where sustainable jobs are easy to come by. In the meantime, the democrats are fighting tooth and nail to prevent exactly what it is you want.

Click to expand...

The wealth gap between America’s richest and poorer families more than doubled from 1989 to 2016, according to a recent analysis by the Center. Another way of measuring inequality is to look at household wealth, also known as net worth, or the value of assets owned by a family, such as a home or a savings account, minus outstanding debt, such as a mortgage or student loan.

In 1989, the richest 5% of families had 114 times as much wealth as families in the second quintile (one tier above the lowest), at the median $2.3 million compared with $20,300. By 2016, the top 5% held 248 times as much wealth at the median. (The median wealth of the poorest 20% is either zero or negative in most years we examined.)

The richest families are also the only ones whose wealth increased in the years after the start of the Great Recession. From 2007 to 2016, the median net worth of the top 20% increased 13%, to $1.2 million. For the top 5%, it increased by 4%, to $4.8 million. In contrast, the median net worth of families in lower tiers of wealth decreased by at least 20%. Families in the second-lowest fifth experienced a 39% loss (from $32,100 in 2007 to $19,500 in 2016).

Middle-class incomes have grown at a slower rate than upper-tier incomes over the past five decades, the same analysis found. From 1970 to 2018, the median middle-class income increased from $58,100 to $86,600, a gain of 49%. By comparison, the median income for upper-tier households grew 64% over that time, from $126,100 to $207,400.

The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019. During this time, the share of adults in the upper-income tier increased from 14% to 20%, and the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%.

Click to expand...

Fantine said:

6 facts about economic inequality in the U.S.

Over the past 50 years, the highest-earning 20% of U.S. households have steadily brought in a larger share of the country’s total income.

www.pewresearch.org

Click to expand...

Why, Fantine..? Why has the wealth gap more than doubled between 1989 and 2016..?

Isn't it because our population increased, while the outsourcing of jobs had continued? There's no other explanation! And your article doesn't even attempt to explain it.

We cannot hide from the truth forever - That Trump's policies are 100% exactly what we need to close the income inequality gap in America.

Fantine said:

If Republican policies help the poor turn into the middle class, as you allege without any references, then why has income inequality been growing so drastically since the Reagan Era? Why is the middle class shrinking, and why are more people falling into poverty?
The first reason began with Reagan's union busting. The growth of labor unions in America brought many people into the middle class. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, a factory worker could own a home and one salary could support a family. It hasn't been that way for decades.
Tax rates for much higher for the very wealthy then but there were also a lot of loopholes. The death knell for the middle class began when Reagan started the first of a series of tax cuts which primarily benefited the rich. Our national debt soared with each round of tax cuts by Reagan, George W Bush, and now Trump. As our national debt soared the scape goat became the people who needed help most.
Instead of shared sacrifice, the goodies for the rich were paid for by hungry children, neglected disabled, those trapped in the ghettos and dying small towns.
'Blame the victims' demagogues gained hold, and we traded our consciences and morality for empty promises.
America doubled down on income inequality this week

Click to expand...

At tge end of the 80s the poverty rate in America was about 12%. By the mid 90s it was 11%. By 2012 it climbed to almost 16%. During the Yrump years it dropped it dropped from 14% to 12%. There was a small climb during Bidens term but by 2023 it had dropped back to 12.5% Thats from the census.

So if you look at this mire people are not falling into poverty. The poverty rate has gone up then down. There is not this "more people falling into poverty" thing going on. The poor is not significantly growing.

The middle income is shrinking because their wealth is. GROWING not shrinking. More people are moving from the middle class UPWARD than downward.

That is GOOD not bad. Lower incomes have held fairly steady with some growth during certain periods but it falls typically within 5 years seemingly fairly steady as an average around 12%.

Meanwhile the middle class is getting wealthier not poorer. This nonsense over more people falling into poverty from the middle class is not born out by the facts.

The rich are getting richer. So is the middle class. And the poor are staying steady.

Landon Caeli said:

Why, Fantine..? Why has the wealth gap more than doubled between 1989 and 2016..?

Isn't it because our population increased, while the outsourcing of jobs had continued? There's no other explanation! And your article doesn't even attempt to explain it.

We cannot hide from the truth forever - That Trump's policies are 100% exactly what we need to close the income inequality gap in America.

Click to expand...

The wealth is not a pie. The amount of income is not stagnant. If one tries to look at it like a pie where there is only so much pie and ic you take the biggest piece there others will only get smaller pieces until it runs out.

There is no limit. A poor person can get wealthy. The rich dont have all the money. If you have the right skills and the right ideas you can move from poverty to middle class and then maybe become wealthy.

No, for some its not easy and for some its very challenging. Life choices can make it very difficult. An woman who has two kids who are working living on her own has a much more difficult time than a woman with no kids. She spends more of her income and needs more than the woman without kids.

But tge answer is not to give her more money. The answer is to help her move upward through education, job training, skill enhancement. In other words she must do the work. Providing resources so she can do just that what is needed. And that mother can get into the middle class and have opportunity at growing higher because wealth is not limited. Its not a finite pie.

rjs330 said:

At tge end of the 80s the poverty rate in America was about 12%. By the mid 90s it was 11%. By 2012 it climbed to almost 16%. During the Yrump years it dropped it dropped from 14% to 12%. There was a small climb during Bidens term but by 2023 it had dropped back to 12.5% Thats from the census.

So if you look at this mire people are not falling into poverty. The poverty rate has gone up then down. There is not this "more people falling into poverty" thing going on. The poor is not significantly growing.

The middle income is shrinking because their wealth is. GROWING not shrinking. More people are moving from the middle class UPWARD than downward.

That is GOOD not bad. Lower incomes have held fairly steady with some growth during certain periods but it falls typically within 5 years seemingly fairly steady as an average around 12%.

Meanwhile the middle class is getting wealthier not poorer. This nonsense over more people falling into poverty from the middle class is not born out by the facts.

The rich are getting richer. So is the middle class. And the poor are staying steady.

Click to expand...

Maybe the problem with the left wing thinking, is that they're only looking at the inner cities, and are saying income inequality is increasing there... In which case, obviously that's what you'll have, when your inner city declares itself a "sanctuary" for poor illegal immigrants. I mean, what else would anyone expect.

...The problems and solutions are not complicated. It's just that, those whose views don't line up with reality, have to create complicated scenarios in order to be seen as relevant to their voting base.

I guess you didn't see this line: and the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%.

Maybe you could quibble, say "the lower income tier isn't all poor people. Some of the lower income tier are 'almost poor' people." But I don't make excuses for the unnecessary income transfers to the wealthiest people in America.

But using your stats, let's say "everyone made more money, everyone got wealthier." There is wage inflation of course. A poor person with a minimum wage increase (hint--only available in blue states unless red state citizens jam one through on referendum) is making more money but his purchasing power has decreased.

And look at the stats about concentration of wealth. The wealth of the rich has grown by "X %." The wealth of the middle class has grown by a much smaller percent, and the "gap" becomes cavernous. And the poor? Well they are doing even worse.

So who do you care about? The family who is one paycheck away from bankruptcy, or the wealthy family who is one capital gain away from buying that Lamborghini they've had their eyes on? We know whose side Trump and the Republican Congress is on in the march towards totalitarian oligarchy.

rjs330 said:

The wealth is not a pie. The amount of income is not stagnant. If one tries to look at it like a pie where there is only so much pie and ic you take the biggest piece there others will only get smaller pieces until it runs out.

There is no limit. A poor person can get wealthy. The rich dont have all the money. If you have the right skills and the right ideas you can move from poverty to middle class and then maybe become wealthy.

No, for some its not easy and for some its very challenging. Life choices can make it very difficult. An woman who has two kids who are working living on her own has a much more difficult time than a woman with no kids. She spends more of her income and needs more than the woman without kids.

But tge answer is not to give her more money. The answer is to help her move upward through education, job training, skill enhancement. In other words she must do the work. Providing resources so she can do just that what is needed. And that mother can get into the middle class and have opportunity at growing higher because wealth is not limited. Its not a finite pie.

Click to expand...

Yes, I used to argue that point, at least, it was similar to your finite pie comparison... I gave up debating it with them, because nobody could provide a sensible counter argument... It's just not a talking point they're accustomed to.

There is a VAST difference between the poor of Jesus day and the poor of today. We do an amazing job at helping the poor in this country including having a great economy and opportunities to get out of poverty. Things that were impossible at the time if Christ.

1) While around 15 percent of the people living in the U.S. are considered poor, around 90 percent of the people living in Jesus’ time were poor.

2) Being poor in Jesus’ time meant constantly fending off starvation and fighting to have any food security whatsoever, while 1 percent of the households in the U.S. today report “often” not having enough to eat.

3) The vast majority of poor people in Jesus’ time were basically illiterate, while around 14 percent of all U.S. adults can’t read.

4) Life expectancy for poor people in the U.S. today is around 80 years (though it varies by sex, race, and geography) while for people in Jesus’ time “probably a third of live births were dead before they reached the age of six. By sixteen some 60 percent of these live births would have died, 75 percent by 26, and 90 percent by 46. Very few-3 percent maybe-reached their sixties” (Thomas F. Carney).

5) The quality of life for poor people in the U.S., in addition to the length of their lives, overall health, and security of food is vastly different from the poor of Jesus’ time. From Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield:

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the [2010] Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

92 percent of poor households have a microwave.

Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.

Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.

More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

43 percent have Internet access.

One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

Now that was back in 2010. Today the majority of them have a computer in their hand.

The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.

The vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair.

By their own reports, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and to obtain medical care for family members throughout the year whenever needed.

So, we ARE doing a lot for the poor in this country. To try and equate tge poor today with the poor of Jesus day and then try a guilt trip us for not doing enough is patently ridiculous. We are doing far more and will continue to do so. But at some point we have to acknowledge that some responsibility to get out of poverty is on the individual and we need to adjust what we are doing to push them up and out.

rjs330 said:

The wealth is not a pie. The amount of income is not stagnant. If one tries to look at it like a pie where there is only so much pie and ic you take the biggest piece there others will only get smaller pieces until it runs out.

There is no limit. A poor person can get wealthy. The rich dont have all the money. If you have the right skills and the right ideas you can move from poverty to middle class and then maybe become wealthy.

No, for some its not easy and for some its very challenging. Life choices can make it very difficult. An woman who has two kids who are working living on her own has a much more difficult time than a woman with no kids. She spends more of her income and needs more than the woman without kids.

But tge answer is not to give her more money. The answer is to help her move upward through education, job training, skill enhancement. In other words she must do the work. Providing resources so she can do just that what is needed. And that mother can get into the middle class and have opportunity at growing higher because wealth is not limited. Its not a finite pie.

Click to expand...

Yes, wealth is not just one pie, Pies continue to be made and those workers who actually make the pies want a bigger piece of each pie when it done. It's really very simple.

BCP1928 said:

Yes, wealth is not just one pie, Pies continue to be made and those workers who actually make the pies want a bigger piece of each pie when it done. It's really very simple.

Click to expand...

Fine then get together with all your other pie makers and demand more. By rhe way those workers wouldn't be making pies if there wasn't some who took a risk to build the business to make pies. Rhwre would be fewer opportunities for those workers to have a job in the first place. In America those workers could also quit and find another better paying job. Sometimes those mean dirty pie job creators compete and offer better better wages than the other pie job creator.

Landon Caeli said:

It's just not that simple to me. The complex changes that occur over time tend to change the order of our priorities.

...I think it's too simple minded to say that those with less than me are always and forever the top priority in my decision-making.

Click to expand...

That's what a wealthy young man said to Jesus when Jesus told him what he should do. Your eternal home depends on caring for others.


Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

rjs330 said:

Fine then get together with all your other pie makers and demand more. By rhe way those workers wouldn't be making pies if there wasn't some who took a risk to build the business to make pies. Rhwre would be fewer opportunities for those workers to have a job in the first place. In America those workers could also quit and find another better paying job. Sometimes those mean dirty pie job creators compete and offer better better wages than the other pie job creator.

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly have to give you credit for being consistent in your point of view.

Landon Caeli said:

Aside from that, Reagan didn't even try to keep jobs in America, unlike Trump's policies. Bringing the manufacturing back home is exactly how we pull the poor back into the middle class where they belong. We want a return to the way it was back in the 50's and 60's,

Click to expand...

The top tax rate was over 90 percent in the 50s and 60s. A much larger percent of new wealth went into the pockets of the people actually making it. That's how it happened.

The Barbarian said:

That's what a wealthy young man said to Jesus when Jesus told him what he should do. Your eternal home depends on caring for others.


Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Click to expand...

That was very well back then, but nowadays what we should do is just be sure that our hard-earned tax dollars aren't given to lazy poor people who don't deserve it. You'll notice that Jesus made no mention of conditioning one's generosity by a means test, or according to legal status. Fortunately, that mistake has since been corrected by his followers.

The Barbarian said:

The top tax rate was over 90 percent in the 50s and 60s. A much larger percent of new wealth went into the pockets of the people actually making it. That's how it happened.

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely. Rather, it has *nothing* to do with taxes. At all

Landon Caeli said:

I disagree entirely. Rather, it has *nothing* to do with taxes. At all

Click to expand...

Of course it does. Higher tax rates encourage reinvestment and discourage private equity predation and other financial shenanigans.

BCP1928 said:

Of course it does. Higher tax rates encourage reinvestment and discourage private equity predation and other financial shenanigans.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean.