Dow

@AverageJoe1
Please enlighten us some more, Professor Analogy. 😆

@averagejoe1 said
I’m thinking you may have been tied up on this forum all day and not noticed the Dow, which I had told y’all a year ago would hit 30,000. I’m now telling you it will hit 40,000 ( that is if repub keeps the Senate, holding back the jackals). So give it some thought, and happy Thanksgiving to all.

The Dow Jones has been trending upward for the last 100+ years so where’s the big insight?

But the spike wasn’t caused by Trump tweeting, eating or farting. It was/is market reaction to a more optimistic 2021 based on the vaccine news and Trump agreeing to a cooperative transition.

@divegeester said
The Dow Jones has been trending upward for the last 100+ years so where’s the big insight?

But the spike wasn’t caused by Trump tweeting, eating or farting. It was/is market reaction to a more optimistic 2021 based on the vaccine news and Trump agreeing to a cooperative transition.

A lot of economists on the biz channels have a lot of differing opinions as to what caused the spike, exploding under Trump. Thankyou for your opinion, number 687. Maybe other people on the Forum can weigh in with their opinions. I will cancel my
Plans for tomorrow to read them all!😋😋😋

@averagejoe1 said
You must have missed my comment a few weeks ago, that our government could easily take care of the 40 million people who have problems such as those we speak of. We could easily spend whatever it takes to do that, and everyone else go out and take care of themselves. To me that is a no-brainer. Just think, we could get rid of all the welfare programs, and simply take care ...[text shortened]... s fortunate ? And what would be your answer to my question to Handy? What? You never say what.

So how exactly are you going to ‘take care’ of the 40 million without some form of administrative structure that we might call ‘welfare’?
As usual your ideas are thin on details and very cryptic.

@kevcvs57 said
So how exactly are you going to ‘take care’ of the 40 million without some form of administrative structure that we might call ‘welfare’?
As usual your ideas are thin on details and very cryptic.

One agency could run the whole thing. I didnt say it would be cheap. Actually it could cost more money than we think, but everyone would be whole again in that sector of our society.
Why does Handy/ not answer my question about the football teams, or the two brothers? Does the successful brother have a duty of care to the loser brother. He knows that the man does not have such a duty, but will not say that . So query this…
Why does did not say that? An interesting study indeed. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone

@averagejoe1 said
One agency could run the whole thing. I didnt say it would be cheap. Actually it could cost more money than we think, but everyone would be whole again in that sector of our society.
Why does Handy/ not answer my question about the football teams, or the two brothers? Does the successful brother have a duty of care to the loser brother. He knows that the man does not ha ...[text shortened]... ery this…
Why does did not say that? An interesting study indeed. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone

Just think of everyone that can, are then working, ....a productive society. No more surfboarders on government entitlements and welfare, which money is instead being used for the good of poor people.

Am I wrong?

@averagejoe1 said
One agency could run the whole thing. I didnt say it would be cheap. Actually it could cost more money than we think, but everyone would be whole again in that sector of our society.
Why does Handy/ not answer my question about the football teams, or the two brothers? Does the successful brother have a duty of care to the loser brother. He knows that the man does not ha ...[text shortened]... ery this…
Why does did not say that? An interesting study indeed. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone

Why do you not answer mine, how are you going to ‘take care’ of the 40 million poor people that’s any different to how they are being taken care of now?
BTW life isn’t a football game in which the loser goes home without a spring in their step. The loser in the real world goes home to hungry and cold children. You republicans are a proper disgusting piece of work.

@kevcvs57 said
Why do you not answer mine, how are you going to ‘take care’ of the 40 million poor people that’s any different to how they are being taken care of now?
BTW life isn’t a football game in which the loser goes home without a spring in their step. The loser in the real world goes home to hungry and cold children. You republicans are a proper disgusting piece of work.

You give them adequate living status, like Castro gives to Cubans. No one digs in trash for food, they get by, and have meds. You libs want exactly that for everyone, right? How bout just give it to the truly needy?? Then, part 2, that makes able-bodied losers go to work and mske things. The tide rises, lifting all ships. Oops sorry, I forgot you don’t like the analogies.

So you dont get my football game analogy. I am applying that to our society. Some people win some people lose. Handy Andy was suggedting that that should not be the case. So I made it simpler.... if one brother does better than the other, can it just stay that way, or should a successful brother support the other? Libs really have trouble with this concept.

This analogy has nothing to do with emotion. I am just proving the fact that everybody is different ,some work harder than others. That is life. There will always be poor people and rich people. I am glad there are rich people who give jobs to poor people. I just do not understand why Libs cannot accept that

@AverageJoe1

the left complains so heavily about how the rich do not give enough to the poor in america and the west.

but when the left has it there way such as in cuba, venezuela, the left never says a word about what total failures they are.

you trust these lefties, Joe? I sure don't.

@earl-of-trumps said
@AverageJoe1

the left complains so heavily about how the rich do not give enough to the poor in america and the west.

but when the left has it there way such as in cuba, venezuela, the left never says a word about what total failures they are.

you trust these lefties, Joe? I sure don't.

Earl, the only thing I know for sure is that they cannot put in one sentence what the situation is when one person works harder than another and goes away with more money than the other. They cannot write a justification of that in one sentence, It is impossible. They drag all other kinds of emotion and confusion into that simple concept. It is an impasse to them. Sad

@averagejoe1 said
if one brother does better than the other, can it just stay that way, or should a successful brother support the other?

The "successful" brother is under no obligation to support the less fortunate brother.

That's life, Joe. Any more dumb questions?

@handyandy said
The "successful" brother is under no obligation to support the less fortunate brother.

That's life, Joe. Any more dumb questions?

No, You answer that with, obviously, they only answer. We are on the same page. But then how can a liberal say that, but on the other hand say that successful people in a society SHOULD support the people who are not as successful as they are. Kamala said that at the end of the day everyone needs to end up in the same place.

So, can you square your first position,( of no support by successful brother), to the second position that richer citizens should support less-rich citizens? This is actually the most un-answered question of all time on this forum.

@averagejoe1 said
No, You answer that with, obviously, they only answer. We are on the same page. But then how can a liberal say that, but on the other hand say that successful people in a society SHOULD support the people who are not as successful as they are. Kamala said that at the end of the day everyone needs to end up in the same place.

So, can you square your first position,( ...[text shortened]... ort less-rich citizens? This is actually the most un-answered question of all time on this forum.

Successful people should give assistance to those who are not as fortunate, but their help is voluntary.

By the way, I consider both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris moderates, not liberals.

@averagejoe1 said
You give them adequate living status, like Castro gives to Cubans. No one digs in trash for food, they get by, and have meds. You libs want exactly that for everyone, right? How bout just give it to the truly needy?? Then, part 2, that makes able-bodied losers go to work and mske things. The tide rises, lifting all ships. Oops sorry, I forgot you don’t like the ana ...[text shortened]... e are rich people who give jobs to poor people. I just do not understand why Libs cannot accept that

Effective analogies are an excellent communication tool but tardy right wing lies dressed up as analogies not so much When the tide rises the rich folks in the luxury liners raise a glass of Champaign whilst the poor folks in the leaky rowing boat get swamped and drown.

@kevcvs57 said
Effective analogies are an excellent communication tool but tardy right wing lies dressed up as analogies not so much When the tide rises the rich folks in the luxury liners raise a glass of Champaign whilst the poor folks in the leaky rowing boat get swamped and drown.

And while you eat your healthy meals 3 times a day and prosper,
your crumbs fall on the heads of the North Koreans, Cubans, Venezuelans,
many African peoples, and others.