leh-nerd skin-erd

Both. I like both smart, and clever.

Depends if you take the actual Michelle Obama approach, or the jazzy quotable quote Michelle Obama about getting high when someone else goes low. As for her being a man...I tried to steer clear of that as there were plenty of reasons to be anti-Obama-agenda and that one didn't really do it for me. On the subject of calling people dolts, honestly, I'd have confessed to being petty and small-minded myself from time to time had you mentioned it, but I needed a place to start and this was about you, not me. 🫡

First, storming around calling people “dolts” is silly and makes you appear small-minded. Second, kudos to you for recognizing Biden as a failure. One could certainly argue rather persuasively that the 80m +\- that voted to put him office, and those that supported the crap festival that was his admin—and where he was in/out/in before Harris was anointed to lead actually lead us directly to this point in time. Enough people wanted a change to the status quo that what happened, happened. Maybe a few less doors kicked in might have reduced the number of disillusioned voters on your side and in the middle. Third….401ks “tanking”. One thing I’m certain of, the markets march on, always. True, they are often driven by emotion and/or the desire for big players to make money, often feasting on the emotion of people thinking their 401k is “tanking” over a very short period of time in the grand scheme of things. At this point in time, the DJIA has tanked all the way back to a level not seen in forever—-or at least 9/11/24. The S&P 500 index has not been this low since….9/5/24 using real time data. At the time, the balances held in a well-diversified portfolio built over a number of years and decades looked pretty good as I recall. Time, commitment and dedication to the long haul seems to matter most if success is the ultimate goal. As for Trump and “winning”, the ultimate determination of wins and losses remains to be seen and is best viewed through the prism of time. I’m comfortable waiting, recognizing that people will be running around like “their heads are on fire and asses- a’catchin” as they always do. Best to ignore them. In closing—you might be right when the benefit of hindsight is in play. On the other hand, you might be wrong.

Concern is understandable and admirable to a point. Recognition that it's our collective problem...well, that's where things get a bit hazy for me. It is, but there's more to it than that. The most common refrain I seem to hear is that "The solution to our collective problem is for those people, over there, to do more than they are already doing.". A few years back, the target zone for "those people" who needed to do more was annual income of $250k+. Last go-round with Team Harris was "those people" who have an annual income of $400,000k+, presumably because focus groups and pollsters established the sweet spot that would encourage otherwise fair-minded people to be comfortable enough to reason "Not me, them!". I've said it before, I'll say it again. Medicare has a math problem, but most solutions offered come from the political realm where votes, feelings and short term thinking carry the day. Social Security, ditto. These programs could be figured out in relatively short order by some smart people applying actuarial standards that consider cost v benefit offered. The challenge to the nation is that as the government perpetually offers political solutions to math problems, and then comes around with hat in hand begging for solutions--it always starts with the assumption that the money already in the system is untouchable, and the collective must accept that the only way forward is for someone, somehow to do more. Thus....an individual in the 37% tax bracket is the enemy, the hoarder, the money grubber who in reality is often a small business owner who took risk, invested time, heart, soul and money to earn the right to be the person 'not doing enough' because the real tax number should be 40%...45%...50% or whatever dopey number is thrown around by politicians and people on the sidelines looking for someone else to tote the rock. Back to the beginning. Before paying more and ceding more control to politicians who don't plan/prepare/spend wisely, let's address the giant elephant in the room--if the money already flowing through the gates being spent wisely, efficiently and carefully. In the meantime--by all means--you and those who feel like you can contribute more to the greater good at literally any place and time, but that seems mostly not a practice that people ever seem to employ.

My god your posts just scream hipster doofus!

First, I want to suggest that you and I would likely agree on a lot of issues, but I feel like I'm coming to these moments of clarity later in life that shape the way I look at all this. At the same time, I'm acutely aware of all the things I don't know on a macro-geo-political-economic level...and increasingly feel like those who claim they do are mostly full of ****. I don't mind paying taxes, in fact, I think it's my duty to contribute to the greater good. To what level is the question, I think. A sensible place to start on what's "fair" (a political marketing phrase if there ever was one) or "reasonable" really starts with a deep dive into whether or not we are anywhere near efficient in the use of the massive volumes of money rolling through the system. Spoiler alert--I think the American tax payer has been getting bamboozled forever. I think the tax situation is out of control and while Trump may appear quite brutish and crass in approach--and there surely is an ugliness about it--when you have a system that feeds itself the way ours does, that's probably what's necessary. I do agree we hear an awful lot about how someone else, the other guy, the rich, isn't doing his part. I saw the Harris campaign partnering with lots of billionaires and multi-millionaires under the guise of the rich paying more...but not one of them has actually seemed to pony up as is their right as an American citizen. That's why I wanted to go the direct route and ask you what you would be comfortable contributing now, at this time. I'm +50, have lived a good life, contributed to the greater good and feel pretty good about where I am at. I don't feel any compulsion whatsoever towards shouldering the blame for political decisions made over the decades I've been around, and respectfully reject your insinuation that I owe any great debt beyond what I have offered thus far. That said--if the government in all it's forms is truly beyond reproach, and the only sensible solution is for me as one of the silver sneaker crowd to pony up another percent or three, I'd be happy to oblige. For now though, I'm a hard pass. I've got you marked down for $7,500.

I was in a dance marathon in college. 24 hours of reckless rhythm and two-left-footedness. I believe this extended yapfest will move Booker as close to the Obama mystique as my experience moved me to the status of Pat Swayze in Dirty Dancing.

How much can we put you down for, Andy?

Ironically, 19 hours of virtual non-stop chit chat from Sen Booker and no time for "Hey, remember....no guns!". https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/04/01/congress/cory-booker-staffer-arrested-00263354 Capitol Police arrested a staffer for Sen. Cory Booker for on charges of carrying a pistol without a license, the department announced Tuesday. Authorities arrested the staffer, named by Capitol Police as Kevin Batts, Monday evening after Batts told officers outside the Senate galleries he was armed, the department said. Batts had been led by Booker around security screening at a Senate office building earlier in the day, according to the department.

Absolutely fascinating to watch, and seeing this poser scramble to block the testimony was pretty funny. “Nooooooooooooooooooo”, he was likely doing the math and watching the clock to run it out.

What got you here, I believe, was in large part due to Biden et al going Ultra Left, kicking in doors and raiding houses and seeking to jail his enemies for life. Glad to hear some common sense on the dangerous criminals being deported. As for the impact on the economy if deportations continue, well, I have to go with Americans paying less for eggs through the exploitation of people here in violation of our laws doesn’t leave a warm, fuzzy feeling either.

I'd tell you I'm angered by the reference, but obviously as an aging boomer I was angry before you wrote it.

Bernie Sanders is a d-bag, a guy who has gotten wealthy in govt and serves primarily to scream “Fair share” over and over. Congress will be a better place when this fool retires, at least until the next chump takes his place. I didn’t catch the exchange today, but having watched these things in the past, it sounds like the garden variety open ended gotcha question and the garden variety noncommittal response. 🥱 As for yesterday, I did see that and this crazy haired communist screaming about onesies was about as funny as you see out of this sort of thing. If SNL has a shred of integrity left they’ll do a skit on it this weekend. I also saw the exchange referenced in the meme. Again, classic scripted q and a, the obligatory screaming about yes or no answers, an attempt to answer, and the predictable response. Meanwhile, pharma makes it rain on members of the senate and congress…

It's not political....well, it is, but it isn't...it's human nature. On the bright side, human nature can change. Btw--I grew up in a very nice, blue collar community that was union strong. The vast majority of my friends had parents that were union members (one of both), as were mine. These were everyday Americans trying to figure out how to get through life, and I feel blessed to have had the experiences with them and for the lessons taught. However, by the standards of today, some might be perceived as closed-minded and provincial. The point I'm always mindful of is that then wasn't now, and some of the fiercest critics today would likely have been the most closed-minded and provincial then.

Daz, we've found some common ground here over the past few days and weeks, but if you believe the "GQP" was the only reason the country needed affirmative action/DEI, you haven't been paying attention. The exceptionally powerful labor unions of the past--were they all about diversity and inclusion? Was there outreach to people of color, immigrants from places like Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala? What about Japanese workers--were the unions looking to bring on those people? How about the police departments of the days of old--were they ahead of the curve on this sort of thing? Did they load up on black officers? In democrat strongholds and neighborhoods across the country--were people from different cultures or skin tone accepted and offered a friendly path to assimilation? Come to think of it--was President-emeritus Joe B known for his diversity and inclusion program during his early years in the Senate? The history of our country is the history of civilization--people tend to gravitate toward people who look like them, who sound like them, and who share cultural values with. That was essential to survival, and as a result, employment practices mirrored that philosophy. In that regard, I always felt that affirmative action was a necessary element of the workplace as viewed from a guy who began his career in the mid-1980s. However, I would never fool myself into believing that this was purely a GOP-driven issue--that defies logic.