5 ms·

So you're expecting 300 million people to take 30 seconds and look it up? Why should we have to collectively burn 1500 million seconds? While our "leaders" are

So you're expecting 300 million people to take 30 seconds and look it up? Why should we have to collectively burn 1500 million seconds? While our "leaders" are feeding us "look all the sunshine" while we choke down a stack of bills and get slapped by inflation every trip to the supermarket. When was the last time anyone in W.DC did their own run to the supermarket? *This* naive disconnect is part of the problem. Also, you're presuming the source is trusted. When your gut feels like you're struggling, anyone who tells you otherwise isn't going to be met with trust and an open mind.

gruez 3y ago
>So you're expecting 300 million people to take 30 seconds and look it up? Why should we have to collectively burn 1500 million seconds? I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Is it that if you take any number and multiply it by 300 million, you'll get a big number? Is it that the average american is so dumb and/or lazy that they need to have the news spoonfed to them by corporate media? >While our "leaders" are feeding us "look all the sunshine" while we choke down a stack of bills and get slapped by inflation every trip to the supermarket. We just established that inflation isn't eroding wages. I'm not even going to address the generic comment about bills. >Also, you're presuming the source is trusted. When your gut feels like you're struggling, anyone who tells you otherwise isn't going to be met with trust and an open mind. If you're going to reject government statistics and not entertain logical arguments because "your gut feels like you're struggling" or whatever, then it's clear that we're in conversation bizzaroland where anything goes and the only thing that matters is your feelings.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  My point is, if there wasn't so much obfuscation and lack of transparency, no one would have to look anything up. It would be upfront. Fwiw, I heard more than one news segment on the econony this past week. Each time it was the talking head and some "expert". Each time it was "the numbers are great, why isn't the public on board?" You know how you answer that...you ask the public. The fact that they don't and instead they force feed a narrative...that's a red flag.

gruez 3y ago

>So you're expecting 300 million people to take 30 seconds and look it up? Why should we have to collectively burn 1500 million seconds? I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Is it that if you take any number and multiply it by 300 million, you'll get a big number? Is it that the average american is so dumb and/or lazy that they need to have the news spoonfed to them by corporate media? >While our "leaders" are feeding us "look all the sunshine" while we choke down a stack of bills and get slapped by inflation every trip to the supermarket. We just established that inflation isn't eroding wages. I'm not even going to address the generic comment about bills. >Also, you're presuming the source is trusted. When your gut feels like you're struggling, anyone who tells you otherwise isn't going to be met with trust and an open mind. If you're going to reject government statistics and not entertain logical arguments because "your gut feels like you're struggling" or whatever, then it's clear that we're in conversation bizzaroland where anything goes and the only thing that matters is your feelings.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
My point is, if there wasn't so much obfuscation and lack of transparency, no one would have to look anything up. It would be upfront. Fwiw, I heard more than one news segment on the econony this past week. Each time it was the talking head and some "expert". Each time it was "the numbers are great, why isn't the public on board?" You know how you answer that...you ask the public. The fact that they don't and instead they force feed a narrative...that's a red flag.