HughFreakingDillon said:

Bentleyspop said:

This is how you President....

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1360238441582260236?s=19

WHAT. A. DIFFERENCE. 

just wait. I'm going to smoke a doob tonight and put on tucker and see what that asshole has to say about this. You just know him and/or hannity are going to claim the bidens have desecrated the grounds of the white house with tacky elementary school decorations. 

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.

I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage.  Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area.  You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different.  But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage.  I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11.  That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.

I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage. 

Dear god this would be abused so bad.  No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage.  Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough.  Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...

Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be  exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem. 

But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.

Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct? 

And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed. 

Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.

so should a 32 year old delivering flyers to subsidize their income get more money than a 12 year old because he brings more to the table for.....delivering flyers?

I don't think you can legally pay a 12 year old. And there's a reason why you don't see many 32 year olds delivering flyers. I am not for an across the board minimum wage of $16, or whatever is deemed livable in your area. A 12 or 14 year old doesn't need to be supporting the family. One way to differentiate wage is by age. Another would be by job. I'm okay with either. If a 12 year old can do a job equally as well as a 32 year old because the job requires no skills, no labor, no experience, a job that a poorly trained monkey can do, then let the 14 year old have that job and pay him $8. But that hasn't worked out I guess.
But even with your example, I would say a 32 year old has a better chance of doing the job better. If you were paying someone to pass out flyers and you had all sorts of applicants because you are now mandated to pay everyone $16/hr, and it came down to a 12 year old who can only cover half as much ground, can only work 3 hours a day, needs to be home before the street lights come on, has to work around his school schedule and no experience on how to manage time with work, school and friends, no experience with dealing with angry customers, you're responsible for him walking around on your dime, never had to read a map before to figure out where to deliver said flyers. Or a 32 year old who has a car, can cover a lot more deliveries in the same time, can work 12 hour days, doesn't need permission from mom on how late to stay out, 20 more years with life experience dealing with crazies in the world while he passes things out randomly, you don't fear for his safety with the homeless wondering around because he's not 12. You think those 2 are equal? I know who I'd hire, assuming no criminal record, etc.
There's a reason they don't hire young boys to deliver papers anymore. They drive around in a car and throw them out the window onto driveways. Because an 18 year old with a car is worth more than a 12 year old on a bike.

that was a really long post basically saying you are pro-age discrimination. the flyer company can easily choose the 32 year old based on the things above, but you can't choose to pay one employee more than another simply because their age is different. You can make the terms of the job the things you outlined. But you can't just arbitrarily decide who gets more based on their age. 

I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the term "slippery slope"?

based on a generalization, one could argue that then would make it ok to pay mexican immigrants more on a job site than a white guy because they are "known" to be harder working, even without first seeing him on the job. 

So would it be better to not specify age when making differences in pay, but state things like if you are flexible in hours, have your own transportation, can be out after dark, etc, then you qualify for the higher wage? If not, if you have limited hours, if you can only work select hours (some minors can't even drive at night in some states, so employers may have to schedule around that), if you can't legally close the shop then you qualify for the lower tier job? You're not setting the difference by age, but by qualifications. Seems like a more complicated system than just dividing it by age, when that is really all you're doing anyway since a 14 year old is limited by law what he can do. 
There's nothing in the law that prevents a legal immigrant worker from doing the same things a white person is doing. So that example is not the same. I'm not basing these on stereotypes of teenagers. But limitations the law puts on them, and therefore also their employer. There are lots of things legally a 14 year old can't do that an 18 year old can, even if they have the same job title. 

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

CBO releases analysis on $15 min wage by 2025.  It's a mixed bag.  Helps some but net job loss.  

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, from the current $7.25 an hour level, as President Biden has called for, would cut employment by 1.4 million and reduce the number of Americans below the poverty line by 900,000, according to a study released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

The cumulative federal budget deficit from 2021 to 2031 would increase by $54 billion if a $15 federal minimum was enacted because higher prices for goods and services would contribute to an increase in federal spending, the report found. Government spending on nutrition supplements would fall, but that would be offset by increased spending on Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits and health-care programs, the CBO said.

The report found enrollment in Medicaid, health care for low-income Americans, would fall because many workers would earn more, but program costs would increase to higher prices for medical services.

Economic output would be reduced slightly, primary because of decreased employment, CBO said.

I have yet to hear anyone beside myself suggest a more flexible wage schedule.   My plan would be to increase minimum wage to a living wage for full-time workers and base that wage on cost of living according to where one lives (cost of living varies a great deal in varying parts of the country).  I would also give exceptions to minimum wage for students or elderly wanting a part-time job to make a little extra money or have something to do.  Why should a small business owner pay minimum wages to a senior who wants a part time job to supplement his or her retirement or social security or just to have something to give him or herself a sense of purpose?  Or to a student who just wants some work experience and some money to buy records and lattes?  I mean, seriously, it's very hard to keep a small business running as it it without having to deal with increased payroll given to people working who do not need a living wage.

Why is this issue being looked at in black and white?  Why is there so little common sense being applied to this issue?  No wonder people get frustrated with government.

I'm a fan of indexed Min Wage.  Maybe something like 4 or 5 tiers based on the cost of living in an area.  You can't really do it at the state level because rural to urban is so different.  But it's a hard thing to do, it's hard to build and hard to manage.  I know there is a counter from Manchin out there for $11.  That's better than we have today and maybe not as disruptive as a huge jump to $15.

I would be if it was more complex to include age or something else too. I'm not for a national "liveable wage" even if it is tiered. And nearly the entire argument against it is not everyone needs a liveable wage. But I never see that addressed. I have 8th graders asking me for work permits, do they need a salary or hourly wage that is enough to support a family? There is nothing wrong with paying a 14 year old with a 7th or 8th grade education, who is at their first job with little to no experience, half of what would be considered a liveable wage for an adult. To increase the minimum wage they should expand the student learner wage program that increase those exempt from a minimum wage. 

Dear god this would be abused so bad.  No one would have jobs but seniors and students of a certain age that “don’t need” a livable wage.  Not to mention how stupid it would be if two people are doing the same job, cashier, line cook etc and one guy is 32 and makes 15 but the other guy is 65 or 18 and only makes 10 or whatever someone else decides is enough.  Holy moly that’s why we created minimum wage laws and unions in the first place, to not abuse the labor force...

Haven't checked this thread in a few days, we've probably moved on. But there obviously would be abuse, that's why more regulations would be needed. Like only allowing a certain number of minors to be employed. A McDonald's shouldn't be run by a bunch of 14 year olds anyway. I don't see why it would be that difficult to stipulate that for every 10 employees, only 2 can be  exempt from minimum wage (such as under 18). That solves your problem. 

But paying people on age already happens to some extent. Most places pay more if you have more experience and more education. So a 25 year old working the same job as a 14 year old will almost always be making more, even if they both are cashiers. You have 2 teachers teaching the same class at the same school, one is 22 and making 45k and the other 55 and making 90k. Same job. Yes, theoretically the older teacher with more experience is going to be a better teacher, but wouldn't also the 32 year old over the 14 year old at pretty much any job too? I would just never agree that a 14 year old at their first job needs $16/hr.

Paying more due to experience and education is very different than paying more for age. If your hypothetical 55 year old teacher was at his or her first teaching job, then they get the starting salary, correct? 

And most teens that I know who are working are saving up to pay university/college tuition fees, so your thoughts on whether they “need” the job or not are skewed. 

Yes, if that 55 year old was a first year teacher they’d be paid first year rates. But your argument was that a 14 year old and a 32 year old at the same job should get the same pay. I’m assuming that 32 year old has more education and more experience than the 14 year old. If a 32 year old has never had a job and has less than a 7th grade education, he’s probably special needs and there are programs for that. Otherwise he does deserve more pay. With 18 more years of life he’s probably picked up life skills, education, problem solving skills, etc that a 14 year old does not have. He’s worth more.
A 14 year old is worth less. Less education, no work experience. Limited hours he can work. Depends on his mom for rides. And $8/hr is still a lot for most 14 year olds who’d otherwise be playing fortnight. If I had to pay them equal I’d never hire the 14 year old.

so should a 32 year old delivering flyers to subsidize their income get more money than a 12 year old because he brings more to the table for.....delivering flyers?

I don't think you can legally pay a 12 year old. And there's a reason why you don't see many 32 year olds delivering flyers. I am not for an across the board minimum wage of $16, or whatever is deemed livable in your area. A 12 or 14 year old doesn't need to be supporting the family. One way to differentiate wage is by age. Another would be by job. I'm okay with either. If a 12 year old can do a job equally as well as a 32 year old because the job requires no skills, no labor, no experience, a job that a poorly trained monkey can do, then let the 14 year old have that job and pay him $8. But that hasn't worked out I guess.
But even with your example, I would say a 32 year old has a better chance of doing the job better. If you were paying someone to pass out flyers and you had all sorts of applicants because you are now mandated to pay everyone $16/hr, and it came down to a 12 year old who can only cover half as much ground, can only work 3 hours a day, needs to be home before the street lights come on, has to work around his school schedule and no experience on how to manage time with work, school and friends, no experience with dealing with angry customers, you're responsible for him walking around on your dime, never had to read a map before to figure out where to deliver said flyers. Or a 32 year old who has a car, can cover a lot more deliveries in the same time, can work 12 hour days, doesn't need permission from mom on how late to stay out, 20 more years with life experience dealing with crazies in the world while he passes things out randomly, you don't fear for his safety with the homeless wondering around because he's not 12. You think those 2 are equal? I know who I'd hire, assuming no criminal record, etc.
There's a reason they don't hire young boys to deliver papers anymore. They drive around in a car and throw them out the window onto driveways. Because an 18 year old with a car is worth more than a 12 year old on a bike.

that was a really long post basically saying you are pro-age discrimination. the flyer company can easily choose the 32 year old based on the things above, but you can't choose to pay one employee more than another simply because their age is different. You can make the terms of the job the things you outlined. But you can't just arbitrarily decide who gets more based on their age. 

I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the term "slippery slope"?

based on a generalization, one could argue that then would make it ok to pay mexican immigrants more on a job site than a white guy because they are "known" to be harder working, even without first seeing him on the job. 

So would it be better to not specify age when making differences in pay, but state things like if you are flexible in hours, have your own transportation, can be out after dark, etc, then you qualify for the higher wage? If not, if you have limited hours, if you can only work select hours (some minors can't even drive at night in some states, so employers may have to schedule around that), if you can't legally close the shop then you qualify for the lower tier job? You're not setting the difference by age, but by qualifications. Seems like a more complicated system than just dividing it by age, when that is really all you're doing anyway since a 14 year old is limited by law what he can do. 
There's nothing in the law that prevents a legal immigrant worker from doing the same things a white person is doing. So that example is not the same. I'm not basing these on stereotypes of teenagers. But limitations the law puts on them, and therefore also their employer. There are lots of things legally a 14 year old can't do that an 18 year old can, even if they have the same job title. 

Sit the next few posts out, buddy....

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.

So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
Still not going to hire you, though.

Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  

The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.

Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 

Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  

That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.

So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
Still not going to hire you, though.

Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  

The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.

Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 

Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  

That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  

I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  

I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  

I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

This reminds me....I used some of my student loan $ to buy a guitar

Exactly why if there ever is student loan forgiveness, there needs to be strict accountability. Prove tuition costs, and pretty much leave it at that. A person is going to have to live somewhere and eat if they are a student or not, so I don't see why we need to forgive loans that covered housing and other every day items...and guitars.

Bentleyspop said:

This is how you President....

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1360238441582260236?s=19

HughFreakingDillon said:

tucker carlson has gone full on "nothing else to talk about" calling the biden marriage a sham PR stunt that is "as real as climate change". 

this is fucking hilarious, considering who the previous first couple were. he knows how stupid (and hateful) his audience is. 

static111 said:

Well according to Foxsnooze and some coworkers, the reason I am without power and heat going on 55 hours isn’t deregulation, decentralization of the for profit power grid and 20 years of Republican state rule, it’s you guessed it...radical socialist Joe Biden and the non existent green new deal!

Joe can’t kill me that easily though because my apartment luckily has a decorative fireplace and there is a nature trail I have been foraging and processing firewood from. Keeping the apartment at a steady 40 degrees! Checkmate Joe Biden, the globalists and the green new deal!