Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If that is the BASE of your argument? I could really throw a monkey wrench in this thread and ask why Parents don't have the right to educate their kids how they see fit? Raise their kids how they see fit, and why does the Government interfere, and blatently undo any teachings parents have done with their own children?
Have a smart answer for this?
Yeah.
The kid was a Cuban national.
He was returned to his father.
Simple as that.
I do hope you called that number, I see you vanished and I hope you got that needed help, or did you run off to a truck stop and sell your body to those dirty red neck truck drivers. You will not answer, you will shut up because I own you.
So did Reagan sign the budget?
Friedman is a Statist Hack. Just like Obama, he thinks China has a better system.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. Chinas leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
Op-Ed Columnist - Our One-Party Democracy - NYTimes.com
Scary shit here...(And Obama and this creep want to make it happen here too)...
So the USA should always be several steps behind so that we're going to depend even more on China's innovations? We should be right up there trying to be FIRST, not last. Sputnik was the swift kick in the ass we needed to get out own space exploration moving forward. But we're now allowing China to run right past us in every endeavor which will greatly affect the future of life on earth. How does that make any sense?
Reagan never had a "hostile" congress. They had good reason to impeach him..and didn't. Clinton's congress, had no fucking reason to impeach, and did.
Get it?
I thought Clinton lied under oath in a sworn deposition kinda thingie...?
/maybe it really isn't that simple!
Lying under oath isn't a Constitutional impeachable offense. Only treason is.
Scary shit here...(And Obama and this creep want to make it happen here too)...
So the USA should always be several steps behind so that we're going to depend even more on China's innovations? We should be right up there trying to be FIRST, not last. Sputnik was the swift kick in the ass we needed to get out own space exploration moving forward. But we're now allowing China to run right past us in every endeavor which will greatly affect the future of life on earth. How does that make any sense?
Very true. And what makes China to continue to be viable is US buying their goods. What would happen if we ceased? We are feeding their fire as they lend us back our own money...and applaud it.
Strawman? I could have sworn the discussion was Reagan v. Obama, particularly comparing recessions, of which the tax situation was a huge part. Hello?
hello, I don't recall making that argument.
this was the OP;
And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.
How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).
What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.
Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.
In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.
The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither....
My answers there after and ahead of his addressed the op as broadly as the Op addresses the crux of the matter, we don't have a recovery and where we are are in that context historically.
You implied that any discussion on comparing tax rates/policy was a strawman argument. It isn't. That's all.
So did Reagan sign the budget?
According to the rw kooks, Reagan had a hostile Congress and never got the budgets and spending he asked for.
Why don't you factor in how much oil prices FELL from 81/82 on?
They fell because Reagan got rid of Carter's silly price controls and rationing schemes. Now they are rising because Obama refuses to allow oil companies to drill anywhere.
Obama says they can drill anywhere they want,
thats not true and you know it MM.
but that energy exploration shouldn't be solely devoted 95% to oil and 5% to alternatives. It's the states who still have moratoriums, like California and Florida who don't want their pristine beach views messed up by big oil platforms on the horizon.
anwar?
So the USA should always be several steps behind so that we're going to depend even more on China's innovations? We should be right up there trying to be FIRST, not last. Sputnik was the swift kick in the ass we needed to get out own space exploration moving forward. But we're now allowing China to run right past us in every endeavor which will greatly affect the future of life on earth. How does that make any sense?
Very true. And what makes China to continue to be viable is US buying their goods. What would happen if we ceased? We are feeding their fire as they lend us back our own money...and applaud it.
Wow.
You can make a lucid point from time to time.
Grats.
You can't compare Reagan and Obama.....Its like comparing a Lion to a slug....and the slug being Obama.
There is no comparison. Reagan didn't go on a world tour to apologize for the United States.
Okay, there's no drilling allowed on federal land. And I think further (additional) drilling in the ANWR region requires congressional approval. But as far as I know, there are no more restrictions on deep drilling in the Gulf, and none on offshore drilling except those imposed by local (state) regulation.
Very true. And what makes China to continue to be viable is US buying their goods. What would happen if we ceased? We are feeding their fire as they lend us back our own money...and applaud it.
Wow.
You can make a lucid point from time to time.
Grats.
So Trump is correct? (And NO, I am not supporting him...but he has a firm grip on this issue)...
And WHY do we continue to do it as we chase more businesses OFF our shores due to a government that penalizes businesses for commerce and being successful at it?
You can't compare Reagan and Obama.....Its like comparing a Lion to a slug....and the slug being Obama.
There is no comparison. Reagan didn't go on a world tour to apologize for the United States.
I say it's about time George W. Bush got mentioned here. Following 8 years of an administration that thought nothing of insulting other nations, a quasi-apology was necessary. It was a no-brainer to acknowledge that the United States has made its share of mistakes, when it's obvious to anyone living in a foreign country with half a brain already knew. It's called mending fences.
Reagan never had a "hostile" congress. They had good reason to impeach him..and didn't. Clinton's congress, had no fucking reason to impeach, and did.
Get it?
I wouldn't say Reagan had a "hostile" congress either. After all, it's well known that he and Tip O'Neill hammered out a lot of controversial issues and were able to COMPROMISE. Something foreign these days, although I do see signs of that changing finally.
I don't agree in principal, maybe the term hostile is to...hostile
the fact is they all had to compromise, or nothing would get done, EVERY congress and exec that is not one party, is hostile or see their platforms at cross purposes and fight for what THEY want.
Reagan certainly didn't get everything he wanted and had to swallow changes to his visions of gov. as presented as bills etc. , Clinton certainly didn't get everything he wanted and had to swallow changes to his visions of gov. as presented as bills etc. but, they made it work, if not simply becasue they had too.
My proviso mentioned in that post, on one party having it all applies to them all, dems reop.s, as we saw ala bush years with a simple majority which maybe have been bad enough let alone a supra majority.
Very true. And what makes China to continue to be viable is US buying their goods. What would happen if we ceased? We are feeding their fire as they lend us back our own money...and applaud it.
Wow.
You can make a lucid point from time to time.
Grats.
So Trump is correct? (And NO, I am not supporting him...but he has a firm grip on this issue)...
And WHY do we continue to do it as we chase more businesses OFF our shores due to a government that penalizes businesses for commerce and being successful at it?
Wow.
You can make a lucid point from time to time.
Grats.
So Trump is correct? (And NO, I am not supporting him...but he has a firm grip on this issue)...
And WHY do we continue to do it as we chase more businesses OFF our shores due to a government that penalizes businesses for commerce and being successful at it?
Trump is partially correct..but no businesses are getting "penalized" in this country..far from it.
And if you'd ever been to China..you'd know that the Chinese are now imposing all sorts of regulations concerning the environment. They have to. China is so polluted now it's causing all sorts of problems.
So Trump is correct? (And NO, I am not supporting him...but he has a firm grip on this issue)...
And WHY do we continue to do it as we chase more businesses OFF our shores due to a government that penalizes businesses for commerce and being successful at it?
Trump is partially correct..but no businesses are getting "penalized" in this country..far from it.
And if you'd ever been to China..you'd know that the Chinese are now imposing all sorts of regulations concerning the environment. They have to. China is so polluted now it's causing all sorts of problems.
Really? They aren't? Why so many layoffs? Why is the unemployment rate so high?
*Try Again*
I'm putting this in Politics because the economic performance is a function of policy, leadership and politics.
Reagan vs. Obama - A Tale of Two Recoveries
Which policies achieved the better result:
And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.
How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).
What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.
Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.
In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.
The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither....
Editorial: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents - Investors.com
You can't compare Reagan and Obama.....Its like comparing a Lion to a slug....and the slug being Obama.
There is no comparison. Reagan didn't go on a world tour to apologize for the United States.
I say it's about time George W. Bush got mentioned here. Following 8 years of an administration that thought nothing of insulting other nations, a quasi-apology was necessary. It was a no-brainer to acknowledge that the United States has made its share of mistakes, when it's obvious to anyone living in a foreign country with half a brain already knew. It's called mending fences.
Trump is partially correct..but no businesses are getting "penalized" in this country..far from it.
And if you'd ever been to China..you'd know that the Chinese are now imposing all sorts of regulations concerning the environment. They have to. China is so polluted now it's causing all sorts of problems.
Really? They aren't? Why so many layoffs? Why is the unemployment rate so high?
*Try Again*
There is a lack of demand. This is a demand side problem, not a supply side one.
