In article <vf2n71$cii1$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
says...
>
> On 10/19/24 5:17 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <vf168e$3sigu$1@dont-email.me>,
> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>
> >> On 10/18/24 4:59 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:36:54 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely your
> >>>>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
> >>>>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moron.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translation: Nailed It.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -hh
> >>>>
> >>>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
> >>>
> >>> Then the problem is your own failure to properly manage your retirement
> >>> financing because you're a moron.
> >>
> >> I'm content with just noting that his claimed fiscal problems are within
> >> his own control, and thus his responsibility: it is lame to try to cry
> >> victim over nominally typical economic conditions.
> >>
> >> Of course, he'll try to shout "But...but inflation!", but the reality
> >> there is that inflation always has existed: the amount we've seen since
> >> 2020 is simply Reversion to the Mean. As such, he seems to have fallen
> >> victim to poor planning due to Recency Bias, instead of being wise
> >> enough to plan using historical averages.
> >>
> >> For historical data, here's one reference to use for planning:
> >>
> >> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/>
> >>
> >> ...or one can use the average of the above, which is +3.3%/year.
> >>
> >> and one should note that inflation can run in spurts just like the stock
> >> market: its "8% average returns" mantra is an average, which hides the
> >> there's been periods of over 15 years with flat/negative returns which
> >> get hidden in out by a huge +30% year. That's why one should expect to
> >> run household budget surpluses in years where inflation's below 3.3%, so
> >> as to bank for when there is a spurt.
> >>
> >> For example, take a normalized $100K retirement income starting in
> >> December 2016 that's been planned to have a 3.3% income growth per year,
> >> as per average inflation and then compare that budget plan to the actual
> >> inflation observed for the same time period:
> >>
> >>
> >> Year Income Plan CPI CPI Equiv.
> >> 2016 $100,000 n/a $100,000
> >> 2017 $103,300 2.11% $102,110
> >> 2018 $106,709 1.91% $104,060
> >> 2019 $110,230 2.29% $106,443
> >> 2020 $113,868 1.36% $107,891
> >> 2021 $117,626 7.04% $115,486
> >> 2022 $121,507 6.45% $122,935
> >> 2023 $125,517 3.35% $127,054
> >> 2024 $129,659 2.79% $130,598
> >>
> >>
> >> Now to analyze. Its easy to skip to today (Sept 2024) and say that
> >> $130,598 is more than $129,659 ... but that's not the whole story.
> >> The whole story is that 2017's budgeted $103,300 exceeded inflation's
> >> $102,110 by $1,190. Likewise, 2018 did too (by $2,649), as well as
> >> 2019, 2020, 2021. Lets build out that table and add up the differences:
> >>
> >>
> >> Year Delta Cumulative Delta
> >> 2016
> >> 2017 $1,190 $1,190
> >> 2018 $2,649 $3,839
> >> 2019 $3,787 $7,626
> >> 2020 $5,977 $13,603
> >> 2021 $2,139 $15,742
> >> 2022 $(1,428) $14,314
> >> 2023 $(1,537) $12,777
> >> 2024 $(939) $11,837
> >>
> >> TL;DR: even though inflation has put you above budget, your prior years
> >> under budget means that you've built up a $11,837 reserve.
> >>
> >> Here's the same data, in percentage form:
> >>
> >> Year Delta% Cum Delta %
> >> 2016
> >> 2017 1.2% 1.2%
> >> 2018 2.5% 3.6%
> >> 2019 3.4% 6.9%
> >> 2020 5.2% 11.9%
> >> 2021 1.8% 13.4%
> >> 2022 -1.2% 11.8%
> >> 2023 -1.2% 10.2%
> >> 2024 -0.7% 9.1%
> >>
> >> TL;DR: low inflation years let your budget get way ahead (+13.4% by the
> >> end of 2021), so despite the inflation bubble (now reverting back to the
> >> mean), you're still 9.1% ahead on your budget.
> >>
> >> That is, if you had planned your budget correctly to begin with, to not
> >> ignore historical average inflation rates.
> >>
> >>
> >> -hh
> >
> > Did I make you do that? Talking about me in 3rd person is cute.
>
> Your bleating about being poor was a reminder to me that 60% of US
> households admit that they don't have a budget, and of those who say
> that they do, 40% of these are done incorrectly.

Says who? I never said I was poor liar.
>
> Because so many folks are bad at this, I've been liberal in offering
> basic financial planning advice. The above's a trivially easy example
> where creating the spreadsheet took less than five minutes to knock out.

So? No one cares.
>
> If you want to customize it for yourself, you'd need to do two things:

I don't need to do shit you say.
>
> a) Adjust to actual retirement year instead of 12/2016, and look up the
> CPI's for any added years.

Why?
>
> b) Adjust to actual retirement income by taking the normalized $100K
> and multiply by your (income/$100K) to recalculate all the values.
>
> FYI, if you want to post those two data points, I already have this in a
> spreadsheet, so its a quick update to customize a plan just for you, or
> for anyone else who's interested.
>
>
I didn't bother. I am already retired.

On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>> > In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
>> >> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
>> >>
>> >>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>> >>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>> >>>>>>>>>> operations.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>> >>>>>>>> get my drift.
>> >>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>> >>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> -hh
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Mad?
>> >>>>>> Hardly.
>> >>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>> >>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>> >>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>> >>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>> >>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>> >>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>> >>>>>> saying.
>> >>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>> >>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>> >>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>> >>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>> >>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>> >>>>>> And that is a fact.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>> >>>>> Case in point:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>> >>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>> >>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>> >>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>> >>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
>> >>> They are going through some things.
>> >>
>> >> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
>> >> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
>> >>> territories like Bilhorod.
>> >>> For the past year.
>> >>
>> >> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
>> >> be if he wins.
>> >
>> > Bullshit.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> > No wars when he was in office.
>>
>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
>
> Not a war.

Additionally, Trump warned the Syrians not to use poison gas on their own citizens.
They tested Trump and he delivered on his promise.

That's the difference between Trump and Biden.
Our ships are being fired upon in the Middle East and Biden does virtually nothing other than continue his weak policy of appeasement.

>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
>
> To end a war.

Yes.
And Biden/Harris managed to botch that one as well.

>> October 2019. U.S. drone strike in Iran.
>
> Not a war.

Correct.

>> Trump also deployed active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.
>
> So? It's needed. But not a war.

Correct.

--
pothead

See Kamala Harris best interview ever.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363352689112
She really knocks this one out of the park.
Don't you agree?

On 10/20/24 12:11 PM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
>>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
>>>>>> They are going through some things.
>>>>>
>>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
>>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
>>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
>>>>>> For the past year.
>>>>>
>>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
>>>>> be if he wins.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>>> No wars when he was in office.
>>>
>>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
>>
>> Not a war.
>
> Additionally, Trump warned the Syrians not to use poison gas on their own citizens.
> They tested Trump and he delivered on his promise.
>
> That's the difference between Trump and Biden.
> Our ships are being fired upon in the Middle East and Biden does virtually nothing other than continue his weak policy of appeasement.
>
>
>>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
>>
>> To end a war.
>
> Yes.
> And Biden/Harris managed to botch that one as well.

But since you pendants are using the "not a war" bit because Congress
never declared one, nothing about Afghanistan counts for Biden either.

-hh

On 10/20/24 11:36 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <vf2mf0$cfh6$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> says...
>>
>> On 10/19/24 10:01 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vf02hi$3cf08$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 10/18/24 1:46 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <veu63e$3cbit$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/18/24 11:23 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vetsqo$3bg55$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>> Yet gas is still not 2x what it was before CoVid. Nor are groceries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you admit prices are higher? Yes when Trump was in office i was
>>>>>>> paying less than 2 bucks a gallon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not for most of Trump's tenure you didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only time that gas was under $2/gallon during Trump's tenure was for
>>>>>> just 9 weeks during the biggest part of the CoVid shutdown, namely
>>>>>> 4/6/20 to 6/1/20.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just 4% of Trump's time in office: the other 96% of the time you
>>>>>> were paying more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In some cases, more then than the equivalent dollar value today.
>>>>>> Case in point, from my prior post:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10/08/2018: $2.903 --> that's in 2018 dollars
>>>>>> 10/07/2024: $3.136 --> that's in 2024 dollars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As per the CPI calculator (here's the URL again):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...$1 in 2018 is worth $0.80 today, so (.80)*($3.136) = $2.51/gallon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, what this means is that the real price of gas today is 13% lower
>>>>>> than it was the same week back in 2018.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plus since this is supposed to be about policy, not random chance of
>>>>>> CoVid, do you remember what did Trump do when gas prices did plummet by
>>>>>> 20% in one month from CoVid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why Trump flew to Saudi Arabia and demanded that OPEC cut production so
>>>>>> as to raise oil prices:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/special-report-trump-told-saudi-cut-oil-supply-or-lose-us-military-support--idUSKBN22C1V3/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plus on future oil prices, Trump set the stage for those being higher
>>>>>> too after his term, by expanding bans on domestic exploration drilling,
>>>>>> calling himself a "great environmentalist":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/2020/09/26/917309717/as-election-nears-trump-expands-moratorium-on-exploratory-drilling-in-atlantic>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your claims have been debunked by the facts, and for you to try to blame
>>>>>>>> the messenger instead of yourself for being wrong is pathetically lame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever. What you call facts is only bullshit put out there to make the
>>>>>>> people happy. I do the shopping. I know what is going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It ain't bullshit to cite historical industry data. Especially data
>>>>>> that's been collected & published weekly for literally decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It ain't bullshit to note that you've cherry-picked from the CoVid price
>>>>>> crash, instead being honest on what prices were 90%+ of the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it ain't bullshit to note that you've avoided correcting me on what
>>>>>> I said about your statements:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I couls afford to do stuff."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which you said that in context to your prior
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I was better off when Trump was in office."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're trying to imply that you could afford stuff when Trump was in
>>>>>> office, but now you can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [/quote]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've claimed that gas was 2x more expensive.
>>>>>> That's been proven false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've also claimed food was 2x more expensive.
>>>>>> That's been proven false too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got anything else you want to try to falsely blame?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> You're playing word games again. The fact is prices are higher on
>>>>> everything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that I didn't dispute prices going up: I merely debunked your
>>>> claim that gas & groceries had doubled in less than four years.
>>>>
>>>>> The lies about crime also. Crime is on the rise.
>>>>
>>>> You're still making an empty claim not supported with substantiation.
>>>
>>> I live here idiot. I know what I see.
>>
>> Confirmation bias is a devious thing. Do you have clippings from your
>> hometown newspaper articles for the past ~decade where you've actually
>> kept track of the rates?
>>
>
> What is a "handful" of apartment buildings?

Apartment buildings? What are you smoking?

>> If not, you merely have an opinion.
>
> I live here.

Doesn't mean that you've actually kept track of what's happening.

>>>>> I can waste
>>>>> time arguing with you woke freaks. You all parrot each other. Like
>>>>> Kamalla did you just spin around the topics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately for you, I've substantiated what I've said. You only have
>>>> your knee-jerk emotions which are not based in factual reality.
>>>
>>>
>>> I live here. Try getting out sometime.
>>
>> Was just out yesterday for dinner. Crab cakes!
>> Didn't see a single criminal act. Now what, Batman?
>>
> Damn you're dumb. Do you think your little bubble is the whole country?
>
>

I've already cite National statistics, whereas you've tried to claim
that you know better than that because of your little microcosm.

I've got my microcosm too, but I also know to look beyond that for
trends: why aren't you able to?

-hh

On 10/20/24 11:38 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <vf2n71$cii1$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> says...
>>
>> On 10/19/24 5:17 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vf168e$3sigu$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 10/18/24 4:59 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:36:54 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely your
>>>>>>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
>>>>>>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: Nailed It.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the problem is your own failure to properly manage your retirement
>>>>> financing because you're a moron.
>>>>
>>>> I'm content with just noting that his claimed fiscal problems are within
>>>> his own control, and thus his responsibility: it is lame to try to cry
>>>> victim over nominally typical economic conditions.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, he'll try to shout "But...but inflation!", but the reality
>>>> there is that inflation always has existed: the amount we've seen since
>>>> 2020 is simply Reversion to the Mean. As such, he seems to have fallen
>>>> victim to poor planning due to Recency Bias, instead of being wise
>>>> enough to plan using historical averages.
>>>>
>>>> For historical data, here's one reference to use for planning:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/>
>>>>
>>>> ...or one can use the average of the above, which is +3.3%/year.
>>>>
>>>> and one should note that inflation can run in spurts just like the stock
>>>> market: its "8% average returns" mantra is an average, which hides the
>>>> there's been periods of over 15 years with flat/negative returns which
>>>> get hidden in out by a huge +30% year. That's why one should expect to
>>>> run household budget surpluses in years where inflation's below 3.3%, so
>>>> as to bank for when there is a spurt.
>>>>
>>>> For example, take a normalized $100K retirement income starting in
>>>> December 2016 that's been planned to have a 3.3% income growth per year,
>>>> as per average inflation and then compare that budget plan to the actual
>>>> inflation observed for the same time period:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Year Income Plan CPI CPI Equiv.
>>>> 2016 $100,000 n/a $100,000
>>>> 2017 $103,300 2.11% $102,110
>>>> 2018 $106,709 1.91% $104,060
>>>> 2019 $110,230 2.29% $106,443
>>>> 2020 $113,868 1.36% $107,891
>>>> 2021 $117,626 7.04% $115,486
>>>> 2022 $121,507 6.45% $122,935
>>>> 2023 $125,517 3.35% $127,054
>>>> 2024 $129,659 2.79% $130,598
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now to analyze. Its easy to skip to today (Sept 2024) and say that
>>>> $130,598 is more than $129,659 ... but that's not the whole story.
>>>> The whole story is that 2017's budgeted $103,300 exceeded inflation's
>>>> $102,110 by $1,190. Likewise, 2018 did too (by $2,649), as well as
>>>> 2019, 2020, 2021. Lets build out that table and add up the differences:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Year Delta Cumulative Delta
>>>> 2016
>>>> 2017 $1,190 $1,190
>>>> 2018 $2,649 $3,839
>>>> 2019 $3,787 $7,626
>>>> 2020 $5,977 $13,603
>>>> 2021 $2,139 $15,742
>>>> 2022 $(1,428) $14,314
>>>> 2023 $(1,537) $12,777
>>>> 2024 $(939) $11,837
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR: even though inflation has put you above budget, your prior years
>>>> under budget means that you've built up a $11,837 reserve.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the same data, in percentage form:
>>>>
>>>> Year Delta% Cum Delta %
>>>> 2016
>>>> 2017 1.2% 1.2%
>>>> 2018 2.5% 3.6%
>>>> 2019 3.4% 6.9%
>>>> 2020 5.2% 11.9%
>>>> 2021 1.8% 13.4%
>>>> 2022 -1.2% 11.8%
>>>> 2023 -1.2% 10.2%
>>>> 2024 -0.7% 9.1%
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR: low inflation years let your budget get way ahead (+13.4% by the
>>>> end of 2021), so despite the inflation bubble (now reverting back to the
>>>> mean), you're still 9.1% ahead on your budget.
>>>>
>>>> That is, if you had planned your budget correctly to begin with, to not
>>>> ignore historical average inflation rates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> Did I make you do that? Talking about me in 3rd person is cute.
>>
>> Your bleating about being poor was a reminder to me that 60% of US
>> households admit that they don't have a budget, and of those who say
>> that they do, 40% of these are done incorrectly.
>
> Says who? I never said I was poor liar.

You've whined about how you used to be able to afford stuff before
Biden, but now you can't:

"I couls afford to do stuff."

So if that's not saying you're poor, than just what were you saying?
Be specific.

>> Because so many folks are bad at this, I've been liberal in offering
>> basic financial planning advice. The above's a trivially easy example
>> where creating the spreadsheet took less than five minutes to knock out.
>
> So? No one cares.

You care, as evidenced by making the effort to reply.

>> If you want to customize it for yourself, you'd need to do two things:
>
> I don't need to do shit you say.

First words above: "If you want..."

>> a) Adjust to actual retirement year instead of 12/2016, and look up the
>> CPI's for any added years.
>
> Why?

Oh, so now you _do_ care? /s

The answer is simple for anyone who knows basic finance:
it is because actual inflation rates vary over time.

>> b) Adjust to actual retirement income by taking the normalized $100K
>> and multiply by your (income/$100K) to recalculate all the values.
>>
>> FYI, if you want to post those two data points, I already have this in a
>> spreadsheet, so its a quick update to customize a plan just for you, or
>> for anyone else who's interested.
>>
>>
> I didn't bother. I am already retired.

Yup, which is why now you "...couls afford to do stuff." and you avoid
taking personal responsibility for your lack of adequate retirement
planning, but try to blame anyone but yourself.

-hh

On 10/20/2024 8:34 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch
of lies:

> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
>>>>> They are going through some things.
>>>>
>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
>>>>> For the past year.
>>>>
>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
>>>> be if he wins.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>>> No wars when he was in office.
>>
>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
>
> Not a war.

Yes, a war.

>>
>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
>
> To end a war.

No, not to end a war, and he *failed* to end one.

>>
>> October 2019. U.S. drone strike in Iran.
>
> Not a war.

A war.

>>
>> Trump also deployed active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.
>
> So?

So it achieved nothing.

*You* achieved nothing, ever.

--
Another content-free post from Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing

*Proper alt.fan.rush-limbaugh netiquette*
Always remove these bullshit newsgroups from your reply:
can.politics, alt.politics.trump, alt.computer.workshop, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
rec.arts.tv

On 10/20/2024 2:25 PM, -hh wrote:
> On 10/20/24 11:36 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>> In article <vf2mf0$cfh6$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 10/19/24 10:01 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <vf02hi$3cf08$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/18/24 1:46 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <veu63e$3cbit$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/18/24 11:23 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <vetsqo$3bg55$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>> Yet gas is still not 2x what it was before CoVid.  Nor are groceries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you admit prices are higher? Yes when Trump was in office i was
>>>>>>>> paying less than 2 bucks a gallon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not for most of Trump's tenure you didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only time that gas was under $2/gallon during Trump's tenure was for
>>>>>>> just 9 weeks during the biggest part of the CoVid shutdown, namely
>>>>>>> 4/6/20 to 6/1/20.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just 4% of Trump's time in office: the other 96% of the time you
>>>>>>> were paying more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some cases, more then than the equivalent dollar value today.
>>>>>>> Case in point, from my prior post:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10/08/2018:  $2.903 --> that's in 2018 dollars
>>>>>>> 10/07/2024:  $3.136 --> that's in 2024 dollars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As per the CPI calculator (here's the URL again):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...$1 in 2018 is worth $0.80 today, so (.80)*($3.136) = $2.51/gallon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, what this means is that the real price of gas today is 13% lower
>>>>>>> than it was the same week back in 2018.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus since this is supposed to be about policy, not random chance of
>>>>>>> CoVid, do you remember what did Trump do when gas prices did plummet by
>>>>>>> 20% in one month from CoVid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why Trump flew to Saudi Arabia and demanded that OPEC cut production so
>>>>>>> as to raise oil prices:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/special-report-trump-told-saudi-
>>>>>>> cut-oil-supply-or-lose-us-military-support--idUSKBN22C1V3/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus on future oil prices, Trump set the stage for those being higher
>>>>>>> too after his term, by expanding bans on domestic exploration drilling,
>>>>>>> calling himself a "great environmentalist":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/2020/09/26/917309717/as-election-nears-trump-
>>>>>>> expands-moratorium-on-exploratory-drilling-in-atlantic>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your claims have been debunked by the facts, and for you to try to blame
>>>>>>>>> the messenger instead of yourself for being wrong is pathetically lame.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whatever. What you call facts is only bullshit put out there to make the
>>>>>>>> people happy. I do the shopping. I know what is going on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It ain't bullshit to cite historical industry data.  Especially data
>>>>>>> that's been collected & published weekly for literally decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It ain't bullshit to note that you've cherry-picked from the CoVid price
>>>>>>> crash, instead being honest on what prices were 90%+ of the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it ain't bullshit to note that you've avoided correcting me on what
>>>>>>> I said about your statements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I couls afford to do stuff."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which you said that in context to your prior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I was better off when Trump was in office."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're trying to imply that you could afford stuff when Trump was in
>>>>>>> office, but now you can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [/quote]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've claimed that gas was 2x more expensive.
>>>>>>> That's been proven false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've also claimed food was 2x more expensive.
>>>>>>> That's been proven false too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got anything else you want to try to falsely blame?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're playing word games again. The fact is prices are higher on
>>>>>> everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that I didn't dispute prices going up: I merely debunked your
>>>>> claim that gas & groceries had doubled in less than four years.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The lies about crime also. Crime is on the rise.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're still making an empty claim not supported with substantiation.
>>>>
>>>> I live here idiot. I know what I see.
>>>
>>> Confirmation bias is a devious thing.  Do you have clippings from your
>>> hometown newspaper articles for the past ~decade where you've actually
>>> kept track of the rates?
>>>
>>
>> What is a "handful" of apartment buildings?
>
> Apartment buildings?  What are you smoking?
>
>
>>> If not, you merely have an opinion.
>>
>> I live here.
>
> Doesn't mean that you've actually kept track of what's happening.
Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell has *zero* awareness of the world
around him.
--
Another content-free post from Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing

>-hh wrote:
>You vermin.
>

Rightists are maggots.

The entire MAGA cult is treason from within.

Thank the Lord that Trump doesn't have much time left.

Remember "Republican accusations are usually confesssions"

I've always called for the wholesale butchering of rightists, not sex-
change surgery.

COViD was a good start but there needs to be more done.

God is doing a great job trying to kill them in Florida.

In article <vf3sgd$iukn$2@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
says...
>
> On 10/20/24 11:36 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <vf2mf0$cfh6$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 10/19/24 10:01 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <vf02hi$3cf08$3@dont-email.me>,
> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/18/24 1:46 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> In article <veu63e$3cbit$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/18/24 11:23 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <vetsqo$3bg55$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>> Yet gas is still not 2x what it was before CoVid. Nor are groceries.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you admit prices are higher? Yes when Trump was in office i was
> >>>>>>> paying less than 2 bucks a gallon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not for most of Trump's tenure you didn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The only time that gas was under $2/gallon during Trump's tenure was for
> >>>>>> just 9 weeks during the biggest part of the CoVid shutdown, namely
> >>>>>> 4/6/20 to 6/1/20.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's just 4% of Trump's time in office: the other 96% of the time you
> >>>>>> were paying more.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In some cases, more then than the equivalent dollar value today.
> >>>>>> Case in point, from my prior post:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 10/08/2018: $2.903 --> that's in 2018 dollars
> >>>>>> 10/07/2024: $3.136 --> that's in 2024 dollars.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As per the CPI calculator (here's the URL again):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...$1 in 2018 is worth $0.80 today, so (.80)*($3.136) = $2.51/gallon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, what this means is that the real price of gas today is 13% lower
> >>>>>> than it was the same week back in 2018.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - -
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Plus since this is supposed to be about policy, not random chance of
> >>>>>> CoVid, do you remember what did Trump do when gas prices did plummet by
> >>>>>> 20% in one month from CoVid?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why Trump flew to Saudi Arabia and demanded that OPEC cut production so
> >>>>>> as to raise oil prices:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/special-report-trump-told-saudi-cut-oil-supply-or-lose-us-military-support--idUSKBN22C1V3/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Plus on future oil prices, Trump set the stage for those being higher
> >>>>>> too after his term, by expanding bans on domestic exploration drilling,
> >>>>>> calling himself a "great environmentalist":
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/2020/09/26/917309717/as-election-nears-trump-expands-moratorium-on-exploratory-drilling-in-atlantic>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your claims have been debunked by the facts, and for you to try to blame
> >>>>>>>> the messenger instead of yourself for being wrong is pathetically lame.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whatever. What you call facts is only bullshit put out there to make the
> >>>>>>> people happy. I do the shopping. I know what is going on.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It ain't bullshit to cite historical industry data. Especially data
> >>>>>> that's been collected & published weekly for literally decades.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It ain't bullshit to note that you've cherry-picked from the CoVid price
> >>>>>> crash, instead being honest on what prices were 90%+ of the time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And it ain't bullshit to note that you've avoided correcting me on what
> >>>>>> I said about your statements:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [quote]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "I couls afford to do stuff."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> which you said that in context to your prior
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "I was better off when Trump was in office."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're trying to imply that you could afford stuff when Trump was in
> >>>>>> office, but now you can't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [/quote]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You've claimed that gas was 2x more expensive.
> >>>>>> That's been proven false.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You've also claimed food was 2x more expensive.
> >>>>>> That's been proven false too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Got anything else you want to try to falsely blame?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're playing word games again. The fact is prices are higher on
> >>>>> everything.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Except that I didn't dispute prices going up: I merely debunked your
> >>>> claim that gas & groceries had doubled in less than four years.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The lies about crime also. Crime is on the rise.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're still making an empty claim not supported with substantiation.
> >>>
> >>> I live here idiot. I know what I see.
> >>
> >> Confirmation bias is a devious thing. Do you have clippings from your
> >> hometown newspaper articles for the past ~decade where you've actually
> >> kept track of the rates?
> >>
> >
> > What is a "handful" of apartment buildings?
>
> Apartment buildings? What are you smoking?

Try to keep up.
>
>
> >> If not, you merely have an opinion.
> >
> > I live here.
>
> Doesn't mean that you've actually kept track of what's happening.

But I do so deal with it.
>
>
>
> >>>>> I can waste
> >>>>> time arguing with you woke freaks. You all parrot each other. Like
> >>>>> Kamalla did you just spin around the topics.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately for you, I've substantiated what I've said. You only have
> >>>> your knee-jerk emotions which are not based in factual reality.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I live here. Try getting out sometime.
> >>
> >> Was just out yesterday for dinner. Crab cakes!
> >> Didn't see a single criminal act. Now what, Batman?
> >>
> > Damn you're dumb. Do you think your little bubble is the whole country?
> >
> >
>
> I've already cite National statistics, whereas you've tried to claim
> that you know better than that because of your little microcosm.

I don't trust any of that shit.
>
> I've got my microcosm too, but I also know to look beyond that for
> trends: why aren't you able to?

I know the truth. That works for me.
>
>
> -hh

In article <vf3t6g$j1dh$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
says...
>
> On 10/20/24 11:38 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <vf2n71$cii1$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 10/19/24 5:17 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <vf168e$3sigu$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/18/24 4:59 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:36:54 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely your
> >>>>>>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
> >>>>>>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Moron.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Translation: Nailed It.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then the problem is your own failure to properly manage your retirement
> >>>>> financing because you're a moron.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm content with just noting that his claimed fiscal problems are within
> >>>> his own control, and thus his responsibility: it is lame to try to cry
> >>>> victim over nominally typical economic conditions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, he'll try to shout "But...but inflation!", but the reality
> >>>> there is that inflation always has existed: the amount we've seen since
> >>>> 2020 is simply Reversion to the Mean. As such, he seems to have fallen
> >>>> victim to poor planning due to Recency Bias, instead of being wise
> >>>> enough to plan using historical averages.
> >>>>
> >>>> For historical data, here's one reference to use for planning:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/>
> >>>>
> >>>> ...or one can use the average of the above, which is +3.3%/year.
> >>>>
> >>>> and one should note that inflation can run in spurts just like the stock
> >>>> market: its "8% average returns" mantra is an average, which hides the
> >>>> there's been periods of over 15 years with flat/negative returns which
> >>>> get hidden in out by a huge +30% year. That's why one should expect to
> >>>> run household budget surpluses in years where inflation's below 3.3%, so
> >>>> as to bank for when there is a spurt.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, take a normalized $100K retirement income starting in
> >>>> December 2016 that's been planned to have a 3.3% income growth per year,
> >>>> as per average inflation and then compare that budget plan to the actual
> >>>> inflation observed for the same time period:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Year Income Plan CPI CPI Equiv.
> >>>> 2016 $100,000 n/a $100,000
> >>>> 2017 $103,300 2.11% $102,110
> >>>> 2018 $106,709 1.91% $104,060
> >>>> 2019 $110,230 2.29% $106,443
> >>>> 2020 $113,868 1.36% $107,891
> >>>> 2021 $117,626 7.04% $115,486
> >>>> 2022 $121,507 6.45% $122,935
> >>>> 2023 $125,517 3.35% $127,054
> >>>> 2024 $129,659 2.79% $130,598
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now to analyze. Its easy to skip to today (Sept 2024) and say that
> >>>> $130,598 is more than $129,659 ... but that's not the whole story.
> >>>> The whole story is that 2017's budgeted $103,300 exceeded inflation's
> >>>> $102,110 by $1,190. Likewise, 2018 did too (by $2,649), as well as
> >>>> 2019, 2020, 2021. Lets build out that table and add up the differences:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Year Delta Cumulative Delta
> >>>> 2016
> >>>> 2017 $1,190 $1,190
> >>>> 2018 $2,649 $3,839
> >>>> 2019 $3,787 $7,626
> >>>> 2020 $5,977 $13,603
> >>>> 2021 $2,139 $15,742
> >>>> 2022 $(1,428) $14,314
> >>>> 2023 $(1,537) $12,777
> >>>> 2024 $(939) $11,837
> >>>>
> >>>> TL;DR: even though inflation has put you above budget, your prior years
> >>>> under budget means that you've built up a $11,837 reserve.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's the same data, in percentage form:
> >>>>
> >>>> Year Delta% Cum Delta %
> >>>> 2016
> >>>> 2017 1.2% 1.2%
> >>>> 2018 2.5% 3.6%
> >>>> 2019 3.4% 6.9%
> >>>> 2020 5.2% 11.9%
> >>>> 2021 1.8% 13.4%
> >>>> 2022 -1.2% 11.8%
> >>>> 2023 -1.2% 10.2%
> >>>> 2024 -0.7% 9.1%
> >>>>
> >>>> TL;DR: low inflation years let your budget get way ahead (+13.4% by the
> >>>> end of 2021), so despite the inflation bubble (now reverting back to the
> >>>> mean), you're still 9.1% ahead on your budget.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is, if you had planned your budget correctly to begin with, to not
> >>>> ignore historical average inflation rates.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -hh
> >>>
> >>> Did I make you do that? Talking about me in 3rd person is cute.
> >>
> >> Your bleating about being poor was a reminder to me that 60% of US
> >> households admit that they don't have a budget, and of those who say
> >> that they do, 40% of these are done incorrectly.
> >
> > Says who? I never said I was poor liar.
>
> You've whined about how you used to be able to afford stuff before
> Biden, but now you can't:
>
>
> "I couls afford to do stuff."
>
> So if that's not saying you're poor, than just what were you saying?
> Be specific.

It means I can't do as much. I'm not rich but I'm not poor. I think you
might be. People who brag about what they have usually don't have it.
>
>
> >> Because so many folks are bad at this, I've been liberal in offering
> >> basic financial planning advice. The above's a trivially easy example
> >> where creating the spreadsheet took less than five minutes to knock out.
> >
> > So? No one cares.
>
> You care, as evidenced by making the effort to reply.

You still learning how usenet works noob?
>
>
> >> If you want to customize it for yourself, you'd need to do two things:
> >
> > I don't need to do shit you say.
>
>
> First words above: "If you want...

Don't bother."
>
>
> >> a) Adjust to actual retirement year instead of 12/2016, and look up the
> >> CPI's for any added years.
> >
> > Why?
>
>
> Oh, so now you _do_ care? /s
>
> The answer is simple for anyone who knows basic finance:
> it is because actual inflation rates vary over time.

In article <vf3sbi$iukn$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
says...
>
> On 10/20/24 12:11 PM, pothead wrote:
> > On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
> >>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
> >>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
> >>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Mad?
> >>>>>>>>> Hardly.
> >>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
> >>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
> >>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
> >>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
> >>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
> >>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
> >>>>>>>>> saying.
> >>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
> >>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
> >>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
> >>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
> >>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
> >>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
> >>>>>>>> Case in point:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
> >>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
> >>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
> >>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
> >>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
> >>>>>> They are going through some things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
> >>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
> >>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
> >>>>>> For the past year.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
> >>>>> be if he wins.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> Cite?
> >>>
> >>>> No wars when he was in office.
> >>>
> >>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
> >>
> >> Not a war.
> >
> > Additionally, Trump warned the Syrians not to use poison gas on their own citizens.
> > They tested Trump and he delivered on his promise.
> >
> > That's the difference between Trump and Biden.
> > Our ships are being fired upon in the Middle East and Biden does virtually nothing other than continue his weak policy of appeasement.
> >
> >
> >>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
> >>
> >> To end a war.
> >
> > Yes.
> > And Biden/Harris managed to botch that one as well.
>
> But since you pendants are using the "not a war" bit because Congress
> never declared one, nothing about Afghanistan counts for Biden either.
>
>
> -hh

13 dead soldiers.

In article <mTeRO.1905$rdS6.1520@fx02.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>
> *Proper alt.fan.rush-limbaugh netiquette*
> Always remove these bullshit newsgroups from your reply:
> can.politics, alt.politics.trump, alt.computer.workshop, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> rec.arts.tv
>
> On 10/20/2024 2:25 PM, -hh wrote:
> > On 10/20/24 11:36 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >> In article <vf2mf0$cfh6$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> On 10/19/24 10:01 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>> In article <vf02hi$3cf08$3@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/18/24 1:46 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <veu63e$3cbit$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/18/24 11:23 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <vetsqo$3bg55$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>>> Yet gas is still not 2x what it was before CoVid.  Nor are groceries.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you admit prices are higher? Yes when Trump was in office i was
> >>>>>>>> paying less than 2 bucks a gallon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not for most of Trump's tenure you didn't.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The only time that gas was under $2/gallon during Trump's tenure was for
> >>>>>>> just 9 weeks during the biggest part of the CoVid shutdown, namely
> >>>>>>> 4/6/20 to 6/1/20.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's just 4% of Trump's time in office: the other 96% of the time you
> >>>>>>> were paying more.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In some cases, more then than the equivalent dollar value today.
> >>>>>>> Case in point, from my prior post:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 10/08/2018:  $2.903 --> that's in 2018 dollars
> >>>>>>> 10/07/2024:  $3.136 --> that's in 2024 dollars.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As per the CPI calculator (here's the URL again):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...$1 in 2018 is worth $0.80 today, so (.80)*($3.136) = $2.51/gallon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, what this means is that the real price of gas today is 13% lower
> >>>>>>> than it was the same week back in 2018.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Plus since this is supposed to be about policy, not random chance of
> >>>>>>> CoVid, do you remember what did Trump do when gas prices did plummet by
> >>>>>>> 20% in one month from CoVid?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why Trump flew to Saudi Arabia and demanded that OPEC cut production so
> >>>>>>> as to raise oil prices:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/special-report-trump-told-saudi-
> >>>>>>> cut-oil-supply-or-lose-us-military-support--idUSKBN22C1V3/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Plus on future oil prices, Trump set the stage for those being higher
> >>>>>>> too after his term, by expanding bans on domestic exploration drilling,
> >>>>>>> calling himself a "great environmentalist":
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/2020/09/26/917309717/as-election-nears-trump-
> >>>>>>> expands-moratorium-on-exploratory-drilling-in-atlantic>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your claims have been debunked by the facts, and for you to try to blame
> >>>>>>>>> the messenger instead of yourself for being wrong is pathetically lame.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Whatever. What you call facts is only bullshit put out there to make the
> >>>>>>>> people happy. I do the shopping. I know what is going on.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It ain't bullshit to cite historical industry data.  Especially data
> >>>>>>> that's been collected & published weekly for literally decades.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It ain't bullshit to note that you've cherry-picked from the CoVid price
> >>>>>>> crash, instead being honest on what prices were 90%+ of the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And it ain't bullshit to note that you've avoided correcting me on what
> >>>>>>> I said about your statements:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [quote]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "I couls afford to do stuff."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> which you said that in context to your prior
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "I was better off when Trump was in office."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're trying to imply that you could afford stuff when Trump was in
> >>>>>>> office, but now you can't.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [/quote]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You've claimed that gas was 2x more expensive.
> >>>>>>> That's been proven false.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You've also claimed food was 2x more expensive.
> >>>>>>> That's been proven false too.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Got anything else you want to try to falsely blame?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're playing word games again. The fact is prices are higher on
> >>>>>> everything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except that I didn't dispute prices going up: I merely debunked your
> >>>>> claim that gas & groceries had doubled in less than four years.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The lies about crime also. Crime is on the rise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're still making an empty claim not supported with substantiation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I live here idiot. I know what I see.
> >>>
> >>> Confirmation bias is a devious thing.  Do you have clippings from your
> >>> hometown newspaper articles for the past ~decade where you've actually
> >>> kept track of the rates?
> >>>
> >>
> >> What is a "handful" of apartment buildings?
> >
> > Apartment buildings?  What are you smoking?
> >
> >
> >>> If not, you merely have an opinion.
> >>
> >> I live here.
> >
> > Doesn't mean that you've actually kept track of what's happening.
> Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell has *zero* awareness of the world
> around him.

He doesn't like you either.

On 20 Oct 2024 03:31:33 GMT, Snit wrote:
>On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:35:57?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> On 19 Oct 2024 18:01:32 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 8:18:36?AM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>> On 18 Oct 2024 21:46:15 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>> I wish we had something closer to equal representation. With the Senate and
>>>>> the Electoral College we are FAR from that. Even the House is pretty far from
>>>>> it. I think the US would be MUCH better off if we had one adult citizen = one
>>>>> vote, and each vote counted the same.
>>>>
>>>> Pure democracy? That would be untenable in a nation of more than 300,000,000
>>>> citizens.
>>>
>>> Oh, we would still have representatives... but something closer to equal
>>> representation. Not the nonsense now where some people have 20x the
>>> representational power of others.
>>
>> Where does that occur?
>
>Wyoming vs. California. Doing some research now.
>
>That was what I was thinking for the Senate... but it is MUCH worse than that
>there.
>
>In the Senate:
>
> Wyoming: 1 senator represents about 290,000 people.
> California: 1 senator represents about 20 million people.
>
>That means about a 1:69 representational inequality.
>
>In the House:
>
> Wyoming: 1 representative for ~580,000 people
> California: 1 representative for every ~770,000 people

Then the solution is to send 200,000 Californians to Wyoming?

>That means even in the house a about a 1:1.3 representational inequality.
>
>Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for about 580,000 people, or ~193,000 people per
>electoral vote.
>California has 55 electoral votes for nearly 40 million people, or ~727,000
>people per electoral vote.
>
>This means a 1:3.8 representational inequality

I agree that in modern times the EC is not a good idea. However, the
representational issues you note are due to the fact that every state gets two
senators regardless of population.

>And yet California citizens give, on average, about $5000 a year to the US
>government, and each Wyoming citizen GETS a bit under $7000.
>
>Those who have the least representation are giving the most. Those with the
>most representation are getting massive support from the Federal government.

These things are all arguable.

It would require a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution to change this. Do
you really think that in such a divisive, highly partisan political environment
as we have today, that such a rewrite would be a good idea?

The problem is that, like most foreigners, you do not understand the "United
STATES of America". The US is not as singular a country as most, but is in
fact, an assemblage of separate countries, aka 'states'.

The House represents the population of the US, the Senate represents the States
of the US.

The population votes and each state votes.

It is the states, not the population, who ultimately select the POTUS.

I find that a better solution than Britain's of allowing the Parliament
(Congress) to select the Prime Minister (POTUS) any time the PM (POTUS) no
longer has the support of a majority of the members of Parliament (Congress).

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 16 days.

55) Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring
increased, and manufacturing fell.

56) Trump said he would fix America's infrastructure but it
never happened. He announced so many failed "infrastructure weeks",
they became a running joke! White House reporter,
"Since it’s infrastructure week..." (Laughter is the press room)
(To Sarah Huckabee) "*Is* it infrastructure week?"

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 03:08:24 GMT, marika <marika5000@gmail.com> wrote:

>Would be great
>
>But for things like the Hastert rule.
>
>We constantly have people like Mitch McConnell throttling votes on things
>that are popular and would pass with a majority but for the fact that he
>and or his small minority just don’t like it.

His minority is not small by *any* measure.

>One man. Making decisions disenfranchising the citizenry,

Senate deliberations and rules are designed as a check against the lightning
fast changes and reversals engendered by the two year terms of the House.

> He should be scared, with his lips that color.
>Would be terrible karma if he himself had gotten Covid, while he’d been
>sitting on the relief bill since like what, July 2020, which finally passed
>due to (I guess) pressure and sick people losing jobs and dying people all
>over the place,

That's Republicans. They were against "Obamacare" until their constituents got
a taste of it and decided they liked it.

It still astonishes me that Mitch won his last election by running against ACA
claiming Kentucky's KenCare was good enough, completely ignoring the fact that
KenCare was Kentucky's implementation of ACA!

>And now we got that deity wannabe Mike Moses Johnson who stifles needed
>votes on things that are popular and wanted.
>
>On top of which, he gives those congress critters much too much time off.

A bigger problem is they no longer bring their families to live in Washington.
That loss of social interaction has done tremendous damage to Congress' ability
to hammer out effective legislation.

>North Korea is invading Europe

As is China.

>and the congress, other than Mike Turner,
>seem utterly unconcerned.

Trump and Kim wrote love letters to each other. Understand now?

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 16 days.

55) Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring
increased, and manufacturing fell.

56) Trump said he would fix America's infrastructure but it
never happened. He announced so many failed "infrastructure weeks",
they became a running joke! White House reporter,
"Since it’s infrastructure week..." (Laughter is the press room)
(To Sarah Huckabee) "*Is* it infrastructure week?"

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 09:36:11 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

>Damn you're dumb. Do you think your little bubble is the whole country?

Do you think yours is?

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 16 days.

55) Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring
increased, and manufacturing fell.

56) Trump said he would fix America's infrastructure but it
never happened. He announced so many failed "infrastructure weeks",
they became a running joke! White House reporter,
"Since it’s infrastructure week..." (Laughter is the press room)
(To Sarah Huckabee) "*Is* it infrastructure week?"

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 09:38:01 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

>Says who? I never said I was poor liar.

You said you weren't doing well.

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 16 days.

55) Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring
increased, and manufacturing fell.

56) Trump said he would fix America's infrastructure but it
never happened. He announced so many failed "infrastructure weeks",
they became a running joke! White House reporter,
"Since it’s infrastructure week..." (Laughter is the press room)
(To Sarah Huckabee) "*Is* it infrastructure week?"

On Oct 20, 2024 at 5:17:41 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<d65bhjpm6220b9joe669sugmv9bt0utpdh@4ax.com>:

> On 20 Oct 2024 03:31:33 GMT, Snit wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:35:57?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>> On 19 Oct 2024 18:01:32 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 8:18:36?AM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>> On 18 Oct 2024 21:46:15 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> I wish we had something closer to equal representation. With the Senate and
>>>>>> the Electoral College we are FAR from that. Even the House is pretty far from
>>>>>> it. I think the US would be MUCH better off if we had one adult citizen = one
>>>>>> vote, and each vote counted the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pure democracy? That would be untenable in a nation of more than 300,000,000
>>>>> citizens.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, we would still have representatives... but something closer to equal
>>>> representation. Not the nonsense now where some people have 20x the
>>>> representational power of others.
>>>
>>> Where does that occur?
>>
>> Wyoming vs. California. Doing some research now.
>>
>> That was what I was thinking for the Senate... but it is MUCH worse than that
>> there.
>>
>> In the Senate:
>>
>> Wyoming: 1 senator represents about 290,000 people.
>> California: 1 senator represents about 20 million people.
>>
>> That means about a 1:69 representational inequality.
>>
>> In the House:
>>
>> Wyoming: 1 representative for ~580,000 people
>> California: 1 representative for every ~770,000 people
>
> Then the solution is to send 200,000 Californians to Wyoming?

A friend of mine has said he wants to see state lines redrawn every 10 years
to keep roughly the same level of population in each state. Not sure I like
your idea any better than his. LOL!
>
>> That means even in the house a about a 1:1.3 representational inequality.
>>
>> Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for about 580,000 people, or ~193,000 people per
>> electoral vote.
>> California has 55 electoral votes for nearly 40 million people, or ~727,000
>> people per electoral vote.
>>
>> This means a 1:3.8 representational inequality
>
> I agree that in modern times the EC is not a good idea. However, the
> representational issues you note are due to the fact that every state gets two
> senators regardless of population.

Right. But that leads to GROSSLY disproportionate representation, 5x worse
than what we had at the start of the country.
>
>> And yet California citizens give, on average, about $5000 a year to the US
>> government, and each Wyoming citizen GETS a bit under $7000.
>>
>> Those who have the least representation are giving the most. Those with the
>> most representation are getting massive support from the Federal government.
>
> These things are all arguable.
>
> It would require a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution to change this.

Right. I do not expect it to change. It is, though, key to many of the issues
we have in this country, IMNSHO.

> Do
> you really think that in such a divisive, highly partisan political environment
> as we have today, that such a rewrite would be a good idea?

Good idea or not, it would never pass.
>
> The problem is that, like most foreigners, you do not understand the "United
> STATES of America". The US is not as singular a country as most, but is in
> fact, an assemblage of separate countries, aka 'states'.
>
> The House represents the population of the US, the Senate represents the States
> of the US.
>
> The population votes and each state votes.

And this leads to many issues.
>
> It is the states, not the population, who ultimately select the POTUS.
>
> I find that a better solution than Britain's of allowing the Parliament
> (Congress) to select the Prime Minister (POTUS) any time the PM (POTUS) no
> longer has the support of a majority of the members of Parliament (Congress).

I *wish* we had something closer to equal representation but I know we are not
going to get it. Might lead to the downfall of the country.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2024-10-21, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2024 at 5:17:41 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><d65bhjpm6220b9joe669sugmv9bt0utpdh@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 20 Oct 2024 03:31:33 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:35:57?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>> On 19 Oct 2024 18:01:32 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 8:18:36?AM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>> On 18 Oct 2024 21:46:15 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> I wish we had something closer to equal representation. With the Senate and
>>>>>>> the Electoral College we are FAR from that. Even the House is pretty far from
>>>>>>> it. I think the US would be MUCH better off if we had one adult citizen = one
>>>>>>> vote, and each vote counted the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pure democracy? That would be untenable in a nation of more than 300,000,000
>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, we would still have representatives... but something closer to equal
>>>>> representation. Not the nonsense now where some people have 20x the
>>>>> representational power of others.
>>>>
>>>> Where does that occur?
>>>
>>> Wyoming vs. California. Doing some research now.
>>>
>>> That was what I was thinking for the Senate... but it is MUCH worse than that
>>> there.
>>>
>>> In the Senate:
>>>
>>> Wyoming: 1 senator represents about 290,000 people.
>>> California: 1 senator represents about 20 million people.
>>>
>>> That means about a 1:69 representational inequality.
>>>
>>> In the House:
>>>
>>> Wyoming: 1 representative for ~580,000 people
>>> California: 1 representative for every ~770,000 people
>>
>> Then the solution is to send 200,000 Californians to Wyoming?
>
> A friend of mine has said he wants to see state lines redrawn every 10 years
> to keep roughly the same level of population in each state. Not sure I like
> your idea any better than his. LOL!
>>
>>> That means even in the house a about a 1:1.3 representational inequality.
>>>
>>> Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for about 580,000 people, or ~193,000 people per
>>> electoral vote.
>>> California has 55 electoral votes for nearly 40 million people, or ~727,000
>>> people per electoral vote.
>>>
>>> This means a 1:3.8 representational inequality
>>
>> I agree that in modern times the EC is not a good idea. However, the
>> representational issues you note are due to the fact that every state gets two
>> senators regardless of population.
>
> Right. But that leads to GROSSLY disproportionate representation, 5x worse
> than what we had at the start of the country.
>>
>>> And yet California citizens give, on average, about $5000 a year to the US
>>> government, and each Wyoming citizen GETS a bit under $7000.
>>>
>>> Those who have the least representation are giving the most. Those with the
>>> most representation are getting massive support from the Federal government.
>>
>> These things are all arguable.
>>
>> It would require a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution to change this.
>
> Right. I do not expect it to change. It is, though, key to many of the issues
> we have in this country, IMNSHO.
>
>> Do
>> you really think that in such a divisive, highly partisan political environment
>> as we have today, that such a rewrite would be a good idea?
>
> Good idea or not, it would never pass.
>>
>> The problem is that, like most foreigners, you do not understand the "United
>> STATES of America". The US is not as singular a country as most, but is in
>> fact, an assemblage of separate countries, aka 'states'.
>>
>> The House represents the population of the US, the Senate represents the States
>> of the US.
>>
>> The population votes and each state votes.
>
> And this leads to many issues.
>>
>> It is the states, not the population, who ultimately select the POTUS.
>>
>> I find that a better solution than Britain's of allowing the Parliament
>> (Congress) to select the Prime Minister (POTUS) any time the PM (POTUS) no
>> longer has the support of a majority of the members of Parliament (Congress).
>
> I *wish* we had something closer to equal representation but I know we are not
> going to get it. Might lead to the downfall of the country.
>
Another one of those convienient friends that kind of come and go snit?
Whatever happened to Jeremy the computer expert at Walmart?
Larry Washington?
The people in the canoe whose lives you saved because you had extra life vests?
For someone who claims to be mostly home bound, you sure do get around.

You are so FOS it's leaking down your legs and anyone who believes a word you spew is a total idiot.
Just like you.

--
pothead

See Kamala Harris best interview ever.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363352689112
She really knocks this one out of the park.
Don't you agree?

On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> In article <vf3sbi$iukn$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> says...
>>
>> On 10/20/24 12:11 PM, pothead wrote:
>> > On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> >> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>>
>> >>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> >>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> >>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
>> >>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>> >>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>> >>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> -hh
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Mad?
>> >>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>> >>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>> >>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>> >>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>> >>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>> >>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>> >>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>> >>>>>>>>> saying.
>> >>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>> >>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>> >>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>> >>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>> >>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>> >>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>> >>>>>>>> Case in point:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>> >>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>> >>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>> >>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>> >>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
>> >>>>>> They are going through some things.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
>> >>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
>> >>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
>> >>>>>> For the past year.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
>> >>>>> be if he wins.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bullshit.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cite?
>> >>>
>> >>>> No wars when he was in office.
>> >>>
>> >>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
>> >>
>> >> Not a war.
>> >
>> > Additionally, Trump warned the Syrians not to use poison gas on their own citizens.
>> > They tested Trump and he delivered on his promise.
>> >
>> > That's the difference between Trump and Biden.
>> > Our ships are being fired upon in the Middle East and Biden does virtually nothing other than continue his weak policy of appeasement.
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
>> >>
>> >> To end a war.
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> > And Biden/Harris managed to botch that one as well.
>>
>> But since you pendants are using the "not a war" bit because Congress
>> never declared one, nothing about Afghanistan counts for Biden either.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> 13 dead soldiers.

Yep.
This hh assclown is a massive idiot.
Congress never declared war during Vietnam.
What do they call it?

pothead wrote:
> On 2024-10-21, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 2024 at 5:17:41 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> <d65bhjpm6220b9joe669sugmv9bt0utpdh@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On 20 Oct 2024 03:31:33 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:35:57?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>> On 19 Oct 2024 18:01:32 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 8:18:36?AM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>>> On 18 Oct 2024 21:46:15 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wish we had something closer to equal representation. With the Senate and
>>>>>>>> the Electoral College we are FAR from that. Even the House is pretty far from
>>>>>>>> it. I think the US would be MUCH better off if we had one adult citizen = one
>>>>>>>> vote, and each vote counted the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pure democracy? That would be untenable in a nation of more than 300,000,000
>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, we would still have representatives... but something closer to equal
>>>>>> representation. Not the nonsense now where some people have 20x the
>>>>>> representational power of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where does that occur?
>>>>
>>>> Wyoming vs. California. Doing some research now.
>>>>
>>>> That was what I was thinking for the Senate... but it is MUCH worse than that
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> In the Senate:
>>>>
>>>> Wyoming: 1 senator represents about 290,000 people.
>>>> California: 1 senator represents about 20 million people.
>>>>
>>>> That means about a 1:69 representational inequality.
>>>>
>>>> In the House:
>>>>
>>>> Wyoming: 1 representative for ~580,000 people
>>>> California: 1 representative for every ~770,000 people
>>>
>>> Then the solution is to send 200,000 Californians to Wyoming?
>>
>> A friend of mine has said he wants to see state lines redrawn every 10 years
>> to keep roughly the same level of population in each state. Not sure I like
>> your idea any better than his. LOL!
>>>
>>>> That means even in the house a about a 1:1.3 representational inequality.
>>>>
>>>> Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for about 580,000 people, or ~193,000 people per
>>>> electoral vote.
>>>> California has 55 electoral votes for nearly 40 million people, or ~727,000
>>>> people per electoral vote.
>>>>
>>>> This means a 1:3.8 representational inequality
>>>
>>> I agree that in modern times the EC is not a good idea. However, the
>>> representational issues you note are due to the fact that every state gets two
>>> senators regardless of population.
>>
>> Right. But that leads to GROSSLY disproportionate representation, 5x worse
>> than what we had at the start of the country.
>>>
>>>> And yet California citizens give, on average, about $5000 a year to the US
>>>> government, and each Wyoming citizen GETS a bit under $7000.
>>>>
>>>> Those who have the least representation are giving the most. Those with the
>>>> most representation are getting massive support from the Federal government.
>>>
>>> These things are all arguable.
>>>
>>> It would require a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution to change this.
>>
>> Right. I do not expect it to change. It is, though, key to many of the issues
>> we have in this country, IMNSHO.
>>
>>> Do
>>> you really think that in such a divisive, highly partisan political environment
>>> as we have today, that such a rewrite would be a good idea?
>>
>> Good idea or not, it would never pass.
>>>
>>> The problem is that, like most foreigners, you do not understand the "United
>>> STATES of America". The US is not as singular a country as most, but is in
>>> fact, an assemblage of separate countries, aka 'states'.
>>>
>>> The House represents the population of the US, the Senate represents the States
>>> of the US.
>>>
>>> The population votes and each state votes.
>>
>> And this leads to many issues.
>>>
>>> It is the states, not the population, who ultimately select the POTUS.
>>>
>>> I find that a better solution than Britain's of allowing the Parliament
>>> (Congress) to select the Prime Minister (POTUS) any time the PM (POTUS) no
>>> longer has the support of a majority of the members of Parliament (Congress).
>>
>> I *wish* we had something closer to equal representation but I know we are not
>> going to get it. Might lead to the downfall of the country.
>>
> Another one of those convienient friends that kind of come and go snit?
> Whatever happened to Jeremy the computer expert at Walmart?
> Larry Washington?
> The people in the canoe whose lives you saved because you had extra life vests?
> For someone who claims to be mostly home bound, you sure do get around.
>
> You are so FOS it's leaking down your legs and anyone who believes a word you spew is a total idiot.
> Just like you.
>
>
crosspost

On 10/20/2024 3:42 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch
of lies:

> In article <vf3t6g$j1dh$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> says...
>>
>> On 10/20/24 11:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch of lies:
>>> In article <vf2n71$cii1$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 10/19/24 5:17 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch of lies:
>>>>> In article <vf168e$3sigu$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/18/24 4:59 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:36:54 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch of lies:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch of lies:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely your
>>>>>>>>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
>>>>>>>>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Translation: Nailed It.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the problem is your own failure to properly manage your retirement
>>>>>>> financing because you're a moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm content with just noting that his claimed fiscal problems are within
>>>>>> his own control, and thus his responsibility: it is lame to try to cry
>>>>>> victim over nominally typical economic conditions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, he'll try to shout "But...but inflation!", but the reality
>>>>>> there is that inflation always has existed: the amount we've seen since
>>>>>> 2020 is simply Reversion to the Mean. As such, he seems to have fallen
>>>>>> victim to poor planning due to Recency Bias, instead of being wise
>>>>>> enough to plan using historical averages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For historical data, here's one reference to use for planning:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...or one can use the average of the above, which is +3.3%/year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and one should note that inflation can run in spurts just like the stock
>>>>>> market: its "8% average returns" mantra is an average, which hides the
>>>>>> there's been periods of over 15 years with flat/negative returns which
>>>>>> get hidden in out by a huge +30% year. That's why one should expect to
>>>>>> run household budget surpluses in years where inflation's below 3.3%, so
>>>>>> as to bank for when there is a spurt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, take a normalized $100K retirement income starting in
>>>>>> December 2016 that's been planned to have a 3.3% income growth per year,
>>>>>> as per average inflation and then compare that budget plan to the actual
>>>>>> inflation observed for the same time period:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Year Income Plan CPI CPI Equiv.
>>>>>> 2016 $100,000 n/a $100,000
>>>>>> 2017 $103,300 2.11% $102,110
>>>>>> 2018 $106,709 1.91% $104,060
>>>>>> 2019 $110,230 2.29% $106,443
>>>>>> 2020 $113,868 1.36% $107,891
>>>>>> 2021 $117,626 7.04% $115,486
>>>>>> 2022 $121,507 6.45% $122,935
>>>>>> 2023 $125,517 3.35% $127,054
>>>>>> 2024 $129,659 2.79% $130,598
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now to analyze. Its easy to skip to today (Sept 2024) and say that
>>>>>> $130,598 is more than $129,659 ... but that's not the whole story.
>>>>>> The whole story is that 2017's budgeted $103,300 exceeded inflation's
>>>>>> $102,110 by $1,190. Likewise, 2018 did too (by $2,649), as well as
>>>>>> 2019, 2020, 2021. Lets build out that table and add up the differences:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Year Delta Cumulative Delta
>>>>>> 2016
>>>>>> 2017 $1,190 $1,190
>>>>>> 2018 $2,649 $3,839
>>>>>> 2019 $3,787 $7,626
>>>>>> 2020 $5,977 $13,603
>>>>>> 2021 $2,139 $15,742
>>>>>> 2022 $(1,428) $14,314
>>>>>> 2023 $(1,537) $12,777
>>>>>> 2024 $(939) $11,837
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TL;DR: even though inflation has put you above budget, your prior years
>>>>>> under budget means that you've built up a $11,837 reserve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the same data, in percentage form:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Year Delta% Cum Delta %
>>>>>> 2016
>>>>>> 2017 1.2% 1.2%
>>>>>> 2018 2.5% 3.6%
>>>>>> 2019 3.4% 6.9%
>>>>>> 2020 5.2% 11.9%
>>>>>> 2021 1.8% 13.4%
>>>>>> 2022 -1.2% 11.8%
>>>>>> 2023 -1.2% 10.2%
>>>>>> 2024 -0.7% 9.1%
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TL;DR: low inflation years let your budget get way ahead (+13.4% by the
>>>>>> end of 2021), so despite the inflation bubble (now reverting back to the
>>>>>> mean), you're still 9.1% ahead on your budget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, if you had planned your budget correctly to begin with, to not
>>>>>> ignore historical average inflation rates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> Did I make you do that? Talking about me in 3rd person is cute.
>>>>
>>>> Your bleating about being poor was a reminder to me that 60% of US
>>>> households admit that they don't have a budget, and of those who say
>>>> that they do, 40% of these are done incorrectly.
>>>
>>> Says who? I never said I was poor liar.
>>
>> You've whined about how you used to be able to afford stuff before
>> Biden, but now you can't:
>>
>>
>> "I couls afford to do stuff."
>>
>> So if that's not saying you're poor, than just what were you saying?
>> Be specific.
>
> It means I can't do as much. I'm not rich but I'm not poor.

On 10/20/2024 3:28 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch
of lies:

> In article <CQeRO.1903$rdS6.565@fx02.iad>, mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut
> says...
>>
>> On 10/20/2024 8:34 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch
>> of lies:
>>
>>> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
>>>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
>>>>>>> They are going through some things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
>>>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
>>>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
>>>>>>> For the past year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
>>>>>> be if he wins.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>>> No wars when he was in office.
>>>>
>>>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
>>>
>>> Not a war.
>>
>> Yes, a war.
>
> Nope.

Yes, a war.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> To end a war.
>>
>> No, not to end a war, and he *failed* to end one.
>
> It's over isn't it?

Yes, thanks to Biden's resolve.

>>>>
>>>> October 2019. U.S. drone strike in Iran.
>>>
>>> Not a war.
>>
>> A war.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Trump also deployed active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> So it achieved nothing.
>
> It will.

It won't.

--
Another content-free post from Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing

On 10/20/24 9:26 PM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <vf3sbi$iukn$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 10/20/24 12:11 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
>>>>>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>>>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>>>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>>>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>>>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>>>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>>>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>>>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>>>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>>>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>>>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>>>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
>>>>>>>>> They are going through some things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
>>>>>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
>>>>>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
>>>>>>>>> For the past year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
>>>>>>>> be if he wins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No wars when he was in office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a war.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, Trump warned the Syrians not to use poison gas on their own citizens.
>>>> They tested Trump and he delivered on his promise.
>>>>
>>>> That's the difference between Trump and Biden.
>>>> Our ships are being fired upon in the Middle East and Biden does virtually nothing other than continue his weak policy of appeasement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> To end a war.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>> And Biden/Harris managed to botch that one as well.
>>>
>>> But since you pendants are using the "not a war" bit because Congress
>>> never declared one, nothing about Afghanistan counts for Biden either.
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> 13 dead soldiers.

On 10/20/24 8:32 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 09:38:01 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Says who? I never said I was poor liar.
>
> You said you weren't doing well.
>

"I couls afford to do stuff."
Said that in context to your prior
"I was better off when Trump was in office."

Golly, isn't it amazing how they can't keep their own story straight?

Its almost as if they have ... confirmation bias.

-hh