Political Comics, Memes, Jokes, etc.

[Bengalzona]

[Bengalzona]

[Bengalzona]

[Bengalzona]

[Bengalzona]

[SunsetBengal]

..

[SunsetBengal]

..

[Belsnickel]

(12-01-2016, 10:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: What i'm asking is, were there Hillary supporters protesting Hillary at that time?

Most likely not. Though, and I was not a Clinton supporter (saw her as the best choice among the shit show of the election), but the primaries are a different animal than the general because the primaries are conducted and are governed by rules set forth by a private organization (the party) rather than the government. So while I find the super-delegate system to be complete and utter bullshit and the way the primaries/caucuses happen to be crap, the parties can do what they please and they are under no obligation to be democratic in their selection of their candidates in any way.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-02-2016, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Most likely not. Though, and I was not a Clinton supporter (saw her as the best choice among the shit show of the election), but the primaries are a different animal than the general because the primaries are conducted and are governed by rules set forth by a private organization (the party) rather than the government. So while I find the super-delegate system to be complete and utter bullshit and the way the primaries/caucuses happen to be crap, the parties can do what they please and they are under no obligation to be democratic in their selection of their candidates in any way.

Ok. So then the meme misses the mark. That's all i was looking for. I wasn't aware of how they were run differently. 

[6andcounting]

Pro Trump meme magic confirmed.

[Belsnickel]

(12-02-2016, 02:55 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Ok. So then the meme misses the mark. That's all i was looking for. I wasn't aware of how they were run differently. 

Yeah, primaries are elections held by state/local governments on behalf of a private organization. It's a very odd situation.

[Bengalzona]

[JustWinBaby]

(12-02-2016, 04:33 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:

I suppose it's not worth mentioning that $7M - in state funds - works out to $7000 per job (we'll just ignore those tax incentives, or "spending" in Nancy Pelosi terms, is over 10 years). And we'll ignore that Indiana's 3.3% tax rate works out to at least $1000 per year per worker, in excess of the $700 per year "spent"....so forget this has a positive ROI as it's neither here nor there.

Would you care to do the math on the "cost per job saved" for Obama's $787B dollar federal stimulus?

[GMDino]

(12-02-2016, 06:14 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I suppose it's not worth mentioning that $7M - in state funds - works out to $7000 per job (we'll just ignore those tax incentives, or "spending" in Nancy Pelosi terms, is over 10 years).  And we'll ignore that Indiana's 3.3% tax rate works out to at least $1000 per year per worker, in excess of the $700 per year "spent"....so forget this has a positive ROI as it's neither here nor there.

Would you care to do the math on the "cost per job saved" for Obama's $787B dollar federal stimulus?

I'm sure you were being facetious.

7,000,000 / 800 (actual jobs "saved") = 8750.00



40,000 per week (added) x 52 weeks x 8 years = 16,640,000 / 

878,000,000,000/16,640,000 = $47,295.67


Nonetheless I'm sure Trump did great because he's not Obama.  

Note:  I don't believe the job numbers in the meme....

[JustWinBaby]

(12-02-2016, 06:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure you were being facetious.

7,000,000 / 800 (actual jobs "saved") = 8750.00



40,000 per week (added) x 52 weeks x 8 years = 16,640,000 / 

878,000,000,000/16,640,000 = $47,295.67

Nope, not being facetious at all.  800 or 1000 jobs...whatever, doesn't change anything I wrote.

Don't hang your hat on 40,000 jobs created per week - that doesn't even keep pace with population growth.  But at least you were somewhat honest in your comparison.  However, the reality is that the high estimate for jobs saved from the $787B stimulus was 3.3M, or something like $280k PER JOB.

LOL, you're kind of making Trump's point that he's a better negotiator.  He's not even POTUS yet and saving jobs much more cost effectively than Obama

[Bengalzona]

(12-02-2016, 06:14 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I suppose it's not worth mentioning that $7M - in state funds - works out to $7000 per job (we'll just ignore those tax incentives, or "spending" in Nancy Pelosi terms, is over 10 years).  And we'll ignore that Indiana's 3.3% tax rate works out to at least $1000 per year per worker, in excess of the $700 per year "spent"....so forget this has a positive ROI as it's neither here nor there.

Would you care to do the math on the "cost per job saved" for Obama's $787B dollar federal stimulus?

(12-02-2016, 06:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure you were being facetious.

7,000,000 / 800 (actual jobs "saved") = 8750.00



40,000 per week (added) x 52 weeks x 8 years = 16,640,000 / 

878,000,000,000/16,640,000 = $47,295.67


Nonetheless I'm sure Trump did great because he's not Obama.  

Note:  I don't believe the job numbers in the meme....

And this eludes the further questions of:

"Is working 'sweetheart' deals for private business now a main function of our government?"

"If their business gets a 'sweetheart deal' from the federal government, can my busienss get the same?"

"Will businesses have to pay taxes anymore if all they need to do to get out of them is threaten to move their jobs overseas?"

"Where are these 'strict penalties' he mentioned?"

[Bengalzona]

[SunsetBengal]

(12-02-2016, 06:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure you were being facetious.

7,000,000 / 800 (actual jobs "saved") = 8750.00



40,000 per week (added) x 52 weeks x 8 years = 16,640,000 / 

878,000,000,000/16,640,000 = $47,295.67


Nonetheless I'm sure Trump did great because he's not Obama.  

Note:  I don't believe the job numbers in the meme....

Not sure where you went to school, but money kept in the country is good.  Those 800 employees are said to make 70K per year, that is 56M in taxable income, just from those employees alone.  Assuming rather conservatively that their PRD will be about 22%, that is 12.4M that those employees contribute to the American "Pot", right off the bat.  Then, when you get into the bigger picture of how many Sales/Service/Install dealers are involved to get the product into the American homes, and all of the people those dealers employ..  It is a much bigger picture than you care to paint. 

Certainly a much bigger win than that paltry 7M, spread over 10 years, that the POTUS elect negotiated.

[Bengalzona]

(12-02-2016, 07:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not sure where you went to school, but money kept in the country is good.  Those 800 employees are said to make 70K per year, that is 56M in taxable income, just from those employees alone.  Assuming rather conservatively that their PRD will be about 22%, that is 12.4M that those employees contribute to the American "Pot", right off the bat.  Then, when you get into the bigger picture of how many Sales/Service/Install dealers are involved to get the product into the American homes, and all of the people those dealers employ..  It is a much bigger picture than you care to paint. 

Certainly a much bigger win than that paltry 7M, spread over 10 years, that the POTUS elect negotiated.

Sure, And now they will be paying even more local taxes now that the area's largest employer isn't paying any 'tall.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-02-2016, 07:56 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Sure, And now they will be paying even more local taxes now that the area's largest employer isn't paying any 'tall.

Any way that you want to slice it, it is still at minimum 800 families with earners totaling at least 56M that go into the American economy.  Would you rather have those families displaced, and having to take from the pot, rather than contributing to it?