Getting rid of Obama’s rules and regulations is a good thing. It will help the economy, the businesses and the employees. If people don’t like their jobs, change to someone else. There are plenty of good jobs to pick from in this robust economy.
Spoken like a true deluded boomer. “If people don’t like their jobs, change to someone else” sure, but what if it’s someone with poor transportation, and children with only certain hours they can work? It’s not as easy to change jobs in this market as you might think
When was the last time you changed jobs? That’s what I thought. The “Robust economy” doesn’t help anyone except those at the top, the american worker is struggling and likely working two jobs to live paycheck to paycheck. None of us are more than 3 bad months from total financial ruin, and your generation likes to pretend that’s not the case because you were lucky enough to be born a few decades before that became the norm. Why don’t you try actually listening to others for once instead of pretending you know everything?
Hey Polar, notice Common Sense right above my post, not talking about insurance either? Why the hypocrisy/only pointing it out against me? Except I know, you’re a hypocritical boomer who doesn’t like opinions in opposition of his own.
Remember that climate change article where I was having a good discussion with another poster about the impact of climate change on our industry and property rates, and then you came in posting conspiracy nonsense about hillary and servers? Yeah, pot to kettle, bud. Once again, your hypocrisy is transparent.
I never lie about the unsettled issue of MAN-MADE climate change…. because man cannot significantly change the Earth’s climate.
Your posts increasingly show your arrogance about being right about unsettled issues.
January 15, 2020 at 12:54 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
So going to continue the cowardice then. Remember when you posted an article claiming 91% of americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change? And you kept saying “the poll from January” but the poll was January of 2016 and it didn’t actually say 91% of Americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change?
So you just lie about things other than “man-made climate change”. Specifically. Just clarifying. Sorry if I don’t believe that you don’t lie about this one subject when you’ve been proven to lie about others. You can argue semantics on the January part, but the rest is clear misrepresentation. Do you think if the insurance commissioner in your state had to decide “is that deception” and you only got to keep your license if he believed it wasn’t that you would get to keep your insurance license?
January 15, 2020 at 12:56 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
6
6
And just to catch you on the front end, ethics is a very big part of insurance. That’s why you have to take an ethics class for many of the certifications, right? So insurance question. Do you think your debate tactics on this forum could be classified as ethical?
January 15, 2020 at 10:13 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
8
I do not agree with your interpretation of ‘ethics’.
I do not lie about Climate Change Caused by Man because no one has proven it exists, and many reputable people believe it is a hoax intended to control people via fear mongering and carbon taxes.
January 15, 2020 at 11:03 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
You’re claiming you didn’t lie, you’re just posting blatant misinformation. Even if we’re not talking about the man-made climate change. Let’s talk about your claiming a yougov poll from “january” when the poll was from January 2016 and did not say 91% of americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change. How about that? You got caught in a lie and now you’re deflecting again. That’s a coward move.
January 16, 2020 at 7:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Perhaps because it worked in the 80’s.
Perhaps because there are specific examples in which it works.
Regarding the jobs types, and pay, Trump is doing so much better than Obama it is staggering.
Also, no, people are better off today than when boomers were teens, adults, etc. They built wealth. Working in computers my older brother at 39 has over a million. Adjusted for inflation he is way ahead of my dad, and, can have everything he wants in life. That’s with an income that started at $100k out of college, doing a 4 year degree, right now, you can get a degree in many coding areas and make $150k. My other brother just got into that.
High taxes particularly harm the same people you are advocating for, as those in the lowest income ranges benefited the MOST from trump’s tax cuts.
And, keep in mind, for a family in the lower range of say 3 would get $3,000 on top. I know for a fact incomes sky rocketed for the lower class. You are incorrect.
I’ve called you out on theblaze before personally. It’s right-wing opinion, not fact.
By every metric, the wealthiest americans are doing better under Trump than Obama. The middle class has all but disappeared. Nice try spreading more nonsense, bob.
Even if we take theblaze as truth, I find it surprising you’re attributing the the improvement in lower income ranges to Trump’s tax cuts when the article clearly said:
“…though the data show the wage trend began in 2014.” and
“”However, several state and local governments have increased the minimum wage in recent years, which would also push up the relative pay for those in the lowest-paid jobs…”
Funny that the article attributes the income improvement to things that happened before the trump tax cuts yet here you are saying it’s because of those cuts that things are improving.
Your summary doesn’t seem to jive with the information presented in the article.
Also…you wrote “as those in the lowest income ranges benefited the MOST from trump’s tax cuts” then provided the link to ‘support’ that argument.
Guess what?
That link doesn’t even have the word TAX or CUT in it ANYWHERE.
Not even ONCE.
Once again, you’re passing a link to ‘prove’ a statement when that link doesn’t even mention the topic you brought up (lowest income ranges benefited the MOST from trump’s tax cuts.)
That’s not an honest way to debate buddy. If you’re going to post a link to prove your argument, the link should actually talk about that topic, ya know?
It appears that the insurance industry needs to take the lead on this issue and develop policy endorsements the specifically exclude any and all liability and coverage for “Joint Employer Exposures”. This should include work comp, commercial liability, and auto liability.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Spoken like a true deluded boomer. “If people don’t like their jobs, change to someone else” sure, but what if it’s someone with poor transportation, and children with only certain hours they can work? It’s not as easy to change jobs in this market as you might think
When was the last time you changed jobs? That’s what I thought. The “Robust economy” doesn’t help anyone except those at the top, the american worker is struggling and likely working two jobs to live paycheck to paycheck. None of us are more than 3 bad months from total financial ruin, and your generation likes to pretend that’s not the case because you were lucky enough to be born a few decades before that became the norm. Why don’t you try actually listening to others for once instead of pretending you know everything?
When is the last time you made a comment about the topic, or insurance in general?
Answer: never.
Polar, you can bet anything a Progressive Socialist says is 100% the opposite of the truth.
Hey Polar, notice Common Sense right above my post, not talking about insurance either? Why the hypocrisy/only pointing it out against me? Except I know, you’re a hypocritical boomer who doesn’t like opinions in opposition of his own.
Remember that climate change article where I was having a good discussion with another poster about the impact of climate change on our industry and property rates, and then you came in posting conspiracy nonsense about hillary and servers? Yeah, pot to kettle, bud. Once again, your hypocrisy is transparent.
When was the last time you responded to your lies being pointed out like on the climate change article in the top commented on IJ right now?
Answer: Never. That’s called cowardice, when you can’t own up to being wrong. Just FYI.
I never lie about the unsettled issue of MAN-MADE climate change…. because man cannot significantly change the Earth’s climate.
Your posts increasingly show your arrogance about being right about unsettled issues.
So going to continue the cowardice then. Remember when you posted an article claiming 91% of americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change? And you kept saying “the poll from January” but the poll was January of 2016 and it didn’t actually say 91% of Americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change?
So you just lie about things other than “man-made climate change”. Specifically. Just clarifying. Sorry if I don’t believe that you don’t lie about this one subject when you’ve been proven to lie about others. You can argue semantics on the January part, but the rest is clear misrepresentation. Do you think if the insurance commissioner in your state had to decide “is that deception” and you only got to keep your license if he believed it wasn’t that you would get to keep your insurance license?
And just to catch you on the front end, ethics is a very big part of insurance. That’s why you have to take an ethics class for many of the certifications, right? So insurance question. Do you think your debate tactics on this forum could be classified as ethical?
I do not agree with your interpretation of ‘ethics’.
I do not lie about Climate Change Caused by Man because no one has proven it exists, and many reputable people believe it is a hoax intended to control people via fear mongering and carbon taxes.
You’re claiming you didn’t lie, you’re just posting blatant misinformation. Even if we’re not talking about the man-made climate change. Let’s talk about your claiming a yougov poll from “january” when the poll was from January 2016 and did not say 91% of americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change. How about that? You got caught in a lie and now you’re deflecting again. That’s a coward move.
Perhaps because it worked in the 80’s.
Perhaps because there are specific examples in which it works.
Regarding the jobs types, and pay, Trump is doing so much better than Obama it is staggering.
Also, no, people are better off today than when boomers were teens, adults, etc. They built wealth. Working in computers my older brother at 39 has over a million. Adjusted for inflation he is way ahead of my dad, and, can have everything he wants in life. That’s with an income that started at $100k out of college, doing a 4 year degree, right now, you can get a degree in many coding areas and make $150k. My other brother just got into that.
High taxes particularly harm the same people you are advocating for, as those in the lowest income ranges benefited the MOST from trump’s tax cuts.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/low_wage_workers_rose_faster
And, keep in mind, for a family in the lower range of say 3 would get $3,000 on top. I know for a fact incomes sky rocketed for the lower class. You are incorrect.
And that other brother? Two year degree. Astounding.
mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/
I’ve called you out on theblaze before personally. It’s right-wing opinion, not fact.
By every metric, the wealthiest americans are doing better under Trump than Obama. The middle class has all but disappeared. Nice try spreading more nonsense, bob.
Even if we take theblaze as truth, I find it surprising you’re attributing the the improvement in lower income ranges to Trump’s tax cuts when the article clearly said:
“…though the data show the wage trend began in 2014.” and
“”However, several state and local governments have increased the minimum wage in recent years, which would also push up the relative pay for those in the lowest-paid jobs…”
Funny that the article attributes the income improvement to things that happened before the trump tax cuts yet here you are saying it’s because of those cuts that things are improving.
Your summary doesn’t seem to jive with the information presented in the article.
Also…you wrote “as those in the lowest income ranges benefited the MOST from trump’s tax cuts” then provided the link to ‘support’ that argument.
Guess what?
That link doesn’t even have the word TAX or CUT in it ANYWHERE.
Not even ONCE.
Once again, you’re passing a link to ‘prove’ a statement when that link doesn’t even mention the topic you brought up (lowest income ranges benefited the MOST from trump’s tax cuts.)
That’s not an honest way to debate buddy. If you’re going to post a link to prove your argument, the link should actually talk about that topic, ya know?
It appears that the insurance industry needs to take the lead on this issue and develop policy endorsements the specifically exclude any and all liability and coverage for “Joint Employer Exposures”. This should include work comp, commercial liability, and auto liability.