80 million on Medicaid

[Rigby5]

And what are your beloved Rs doing about this?

Planning more tax cuts for the billionaires no doubt.

It's all they know.

I received a tax cut from Trump and I’m not a billionaire. Care to explain?

The national debt increased under Trump, so he was stealing from future generations who will then have to pay back the interest if not the principle.

 

[Rigby5]

That same Constitution that told us what real money was. It is not that there were people not doing well back then. But the taxes were nothing compared to today and the same issues and much worse exist. It is understandable. Poverty and hunger is not a fun thing. Yet it exists here with massive payouts in many ways. So the taxes keep rising in incremental ways. And the issues do not go away.

The Founding Fathers anticipated the inevitable societal changes and designed a democracy wherein succeeding electorates decide their contemporary concerns by electing representative who legislate according to those priorities.

Yes it does. But to subvert it a fiat currency had to installed and it was pushed through by very powerful globalists. Legalized loan sharks who take a cut from every federal reserve note.

I realize Fiat Currency is a popular buzzword, but both the founders and Lincoln gop financed wars with fiat currency

So did the Romans and the practice played a major role in their decline. The fact that mistakes were made in the past doesn’t justify making the same ones in the present.

A gold standard allows your economy to be manipulated against your interests.
A fiat standard actually should allow you more protection.
After all, look was happened to Spain's economy after it got all that gold from the New World.
A gold standard is not really a good idea.

 

[Crepitus]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

 

[Crepitus]

That same Constitution that told us what real money was. It is not that there were people not doing well back then. But the taxes were nothing compared to today and the same issues and much worse exist. It is understandable. Poverty and hunger is not a fun thing. Yet it exists here with massive payouts in many ways. So the taxes keep rising in incremental ways. And the issues do not go away.

The Founding Fathers anticipated the inevitable societal changes and designed a democracy wherein succeeding electorates decide their contemporary concerns by electing representative who legislate according to those priorities.

Yes it does. But to subvert it a fiat currency had to installed and it was pushed through by very powerful globalists. Legalized loan sharks who take a cut from every federal reserve note.

I realize Fiat Currency is a popular buzzword, but both the founders and Lincoln gop financed wars with fiat currency

So did the Romans and the practice played a major role in their decline. The fact that mistakes were made in the past doesn’t justify making the same ones in the present.

Republicans keep crashing the economy and they keep repeating that mistake over and over again. Cut taxes, blow up the deficit, crash the economy.

So why do people keep voting the Republicans in the office when the only thing they have done for the past 40 years is to crash the economy in favour of the wealthy.

The wealthy have come out ahead in everyone of these crashes and working in middle-class people get further and further behind.

But you keep voting for them.

 

[NightFox]

That same Constitution that told us what real money was. It is not that there were people not doing well back then. But the taxes were nothing compared to today and the same issues and much worse exist. It is understandable. Poverty and hunger is not a fun thing. Yet it exists here with massive payouts in many ways. So the taxes keep rising in incremental ways. And the issues do not go away.

The Founding Fathers anticipated the inevitable societal changes and designed a democracy wherein succeeding electorates decide their contemporary concerns by electing representative who legislate according to those priorities.

Yes it does. But to subvert it a fiat currency had to installed and it was pushed through by very powerful globalists. Legalized loan sharks who take a cut from every federal reserve note.

I realize Fiat Currency is a popular buzzword, but both the founders and Lincoln gop financed wars with fiat currency

So did the Romans and the practice played a major role in their decline. The fact that mistakes were made in the past doesn’t justify making the same ones in the present.

Well I agree, sort of. But the problem has nothing to do with "fiat currency" and the buzzword of today. We paid our unsecured debts we ran up in wars. The gold standard was responsible for turning a recession into a decade long global depression that was only cured with "fiat money." The problem is leaders willing to vote for crap and tax cuts regardless of budget deficits.

You seem to be forgetting the effects of our dropping Bretton Woods in the early 1970’s and why that agreement existed in the first place. After it was gone the dollar was no longer tied to ANYTHING and since much of the world uses the dollar as their reserve currency guess what their currencies are tied to?

We’re doing the same thing with the dollar that the Romans did to the denarius and for the same reasons (removing spending restraint on the state), the Romans devalued their currency so badly that even the state stopped accepting it for tax payments.

I wasn't forgetting. Bretton Woods and the gold standard caused an outflow of gold

Stop right there, what was the root cause of the net outflow of gold that caused Nixon to abandon Bretton Woods? the oil crisis is irrelevant since it took place after Nixons action.

Second question, how would you explain the rising popularity of crypto for transactions? I ask because it’s directly related to the first question.

hint: what do people do with respect to money when “the jig is up”?

Woof,woof Doggie always good to read your insights.

You're right. While the oil crisis was part of Nixon's motivation that actually predated the oil embargo. We'd reached "peak oil" in domestic production which caused us to import more, and that caused dollars (tied to gold) to go overseas.

1970s energy crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I recall it seemed like a good idea at the time. LOL. I just wanted a job that didn't involve being part of the Vietnam adventure.

Nixon shock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By 1966, non-US central banks held $14 billion, while the United States had only $13.2 billion in gold reserve. Of those reserves, only $3.2 billion was able to cover foreign holdings as the rest was covering domestic holdings.[7]

By 1971, the money supply had increased by 10%.[8] In May 1971, West Germany left the Bretton Woods system, unwilling to revalue the Deutsche Mark.[9] In the following three months, this move strengthened its economy. Simultaneously, the dollar dropped 7.5% against the Deutsche Mark.[9] Other nations began to demand redemption of their dollars for gold. Switzerland redeemed $50 million in July.[9] France acquired $191 million in gold.[9] On August 5, 1971, the United States Congress released a report recommending devaluation of the dollar, in an effort to protect the dollar against "foreign price-gougers".[9] On August 9, 1971, as the dollar dropped in value against European currencies, Switzerland left the Bretton Woods system.[9] The pressure began to intensify on the United States to leave Bretton Woods.

You captured the gist of question #1, the world figured out that we were CHEATING (printing more dollars than we had gold reserves to back them) on Bretton Woods to pay for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. People being people saw the writing on the wall and wanted gold at the fixed asset price instead of dollars (which is want to happen when they see a devaluation coming). The bullshit excuse that Nixon gave “defend the dollar from the speculators” was just that BULLSHIT, they weren’t “speculators” they knew exactly what was happening. Since then we’ve been on a grand experiment in currencies never before seen in the History of Civilization, fiat currencies tied to another fiat currency, it’s good for us as long as the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency, not so good when that ends.

Crypto is a symptom of the same problem, fiat currencies return to their intrinsic value when the illusion cracks and nobody wants to be in them when it does, the cracks, they’re starting to show. All it will take is one major economy (for example CHINA) to dump their dollar reserves and the dominoes will fall.

that is the rub. When the dollar is not longer the reserve currency, prices are gonna go UUUUUPPP. Perhaps China's endgame is for the yuan to be the new dollar. But I don's see why other countries would tie to a currency that is fixed by pols.

But the problem was the gold standard failed to halt the great depression. There's a youtube of Friedman explaining what happened but essentially when one country redeemed another country's money from the other country's gold reserve .... they kept it. In theory, the state with a lot of gold would have their money become overvalued, so they'd buy stuff in other countries with a devalued currency that was cheaper, so that country would get the gold. But it all stopped. And there was no way to start it again.

But with any currency that is not tied to some tangible thing (seashells, tulips, gold whatever) you rightly point out that we can make as much as we want. It's like crack. But you and I can say no to crack, but we're stuck with the deficits.

Under Bretton Woods, gold was valued at a fixed price to dollars (1 oz: $35), therefore the country with the most gold could print the most currency, each unit still retained the same intrinsic value in relationship to gold and thus the value relationship to all other currencies in the system.

You’re correct though, the gold standard does suffer from liquidity problems always has always will, but fiat currencies suffer from a bigger problem, increasing devaluation risk leading to the return to intrinsic value (0). Which outcome is worse for the citizenry, Depression or hyper-inflation?

Who knows, perhaps crypto will be the way to “start it again”, if we can solve the transaction scalability problems, switch from effort based mining to stake based mining and achieve real psuedonimity of the blockchain ledger. A fully democratized, decentralized currency system, nice idea, huh?

Well we learned that the answer to hyperinflation is to just hike rates till there is no demand for goods. Of course that means a lot lose jobs. Reagan's first term was no dance in the candlelight. lol And we do in theory act in concert with other national banks. China ... not.

Since 1996 or so our problem really has been bubble markets. Or rampant speculation. Or too many dollars in search of an investment. Or insufficient consumer demand to get our output to rise. I don't really see gold or monetarism as an answer to that. In the 1970's the fed set rates to get full employment. Now it looks at inflation too.

The gop's answer was a tax cut both in 2000 and 2016. How that was supposed to work always seemed illogical to me since the rich folks with the money to invest got more of it when there was already a glut (see bubble markets), and the workers were just buying stuff on credit. Trump had this unique theory that 1970 industrial jobs that are now automated would make a comeback, and we'd pay people in the US 5-6 times what people in asia will do the same job for. Not surprisingly, it failed.

The dems seem to have stumbled onto a plan because of covid. For a number of reasons that no one really say which is more important, there are fewer US workers now. Probably extended UI benefits. But the workforce aged, and some retired. We don't have the illegal immigrants. And people are seeing wages go up because of demand for labor, so they quit one job to get another. And during the pandemic we didn't have the usual job attrition of people leaving jobs, so there may be just pent up demand to "take this job and shove it."

I really don't know. I thought the democrat centrists were not all wrong in making sure workers had educ for their kids, and HC and retirement simply by taxing rich folks (who have an excess of investment money) so workers would use their own pay to buy more stuff. Which not coincidentally would me the investor class would find investments to make this stuff. But that seems to be unpopular even more with the workers than with the investors. I did read that there's some call to make all employers fund employee 401ks.

You can’t counter hyperinflation with rate hikes if the underlying reason for hyperinflation is a massive loss of confidence in the currency, it’s a vicious cycle, look what happened in the Weimar Republic. We came close to a similar brink in 2008 with the rapid loss of confidence in the financial system,We got LUCKY. We must come to grips with the fact that the current system is inherently unstable and no matter how smart or wise the central planners are, they cannot prevent a collapse over the long term.

 

[Flash]

You are still confused aren't you? How can anybody be "educated" and support Libtard policies that are always a disaster?

I'll take your inability to provide any data that contradicts that which rates the best-educated and most prosperous states as an admission that you have nothing of substance to offer. You're just pissy about the political orientation of the best-educated and most prosperous states.

If you make sacrifices to your gods that the people of Massachusetts suddenly vote as if they were Mississippians, you are going to be disappointed.

How educated can you posiibly be if you live in a fucking state whose nickname is "Taxachusetts? Only a dumbass would do that.

 

[Flash]

You are still confused aren't you? How can anybody be "educated" and support Libtard policies that are always a disaster?

I'll take your inability to provide any data that contradicts that which rates the best-educated and most prosperous states as an admission that you have nothing of substance to offer. You're just pissy about the political orientation of the best-educated and most prosperous states.

If you make sacrifices to your gods that the people of Massachusetts suddenly vote as if they were Mississippians, you are going to be disappointed.

Let me tell you what I know about those dumbass turds from Massachusetts.

For 20 years I lived in Winter Haven, Florida. That was the spring training city for the fucking Boston Red Soxs.

Every spring all these shitheads from Massachusetts would flood in.

They were absolutely the dumbest smelliest obnoxious assholes you would ever meet. I doubt one ever had an IQ of over 60. Most of the shitheads could hardly speak English.

Winter Haven finally got tired of the low life trash and kicked Boston out of the spring training facilities.

If that trash is what the Massachusetts turns out in their education system then they are the joke of the country.

 

[TNHarley]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated. Therefore, that would be a redundancy
redundancy
[rəˈdəndənsē]

NOUN

1. the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
   
   
   
   

 

[NightFox]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated.

Whatever gave you that idea TN? Capitalism doesn't presuppose the absence of regulation, in fact it won't work at scale in the absence of regulation, how for example, would contract enforcement work? What about property rights, how would those be protected in the absence of regulation? What about the effects of cartelization limiting market competition?

Adam Smith didn't advocate for the absence of government regulation in the economy, he advocated for LIMITED and EQUITABLE government regulation of the economy.

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations

 

[Crepitus]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated. Therefore, that would be a redundancy
redundancy
[rəˈdəndənsē]

NOUN

1. the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
   
   
   

Lol, seriously?

Then what are these regulations you tRumplings are always bitching about? Do they not exist?

 

[TNHarley]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated.

Whatever gave you that idea TN? Capitalism doesn't presuppose the absence of regulation, in fact it won't work at scale in the absence of regulation, how for example, would contract enforcement work? What about property rights, how would those be protected in the absence of regulation? What about the effects of cartelization limiting market competition?

Adam Smith didn't advocate for the absence of government regulation in the economy, he advocated for LIMITED and EQUITABLE government regulation of the economy.

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations

You remember when we were discussing socialism the other day? And i brought up how fire depts and the like was a bullshit argument for "me being a socialist?"
Im kinda at the same point here. Like companies not being able to drop their pollutants off in the local creek. Or a company not paying for subsidized work even with a contract. Things like that.
But that isnt what that federal supremacist was referring to.

 

[TNHarley]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated. Therefore, that would be a redundancy
redundancy
[rəˈdəndənsē]

NOUN

1. the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
   
   

Lol, seriously?

Then what are these regulations you tRumplings are always bitching about? Do they not exist?

huh?

 

[Crepitus]

Whatever gave you that idea TN?

These people tend to invent definitions that they like rather than use the real ones. It makes it easier for them to win arguments in their own minds. Try having a discussion with kyz for instance.

 

[gipper]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated. Therefore, that would be a redundancy
redundancy
[rəˈdəndənsē]

NOUN

1. the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
   
   

Lol, seriously?

Then what are these regulations you tRumplings are always bitching about? Do they not exist?

As usual you missed the point.

 

[Crepitus]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated. Therefore, that would be a redundancy
redundancy
[rəˈdəndənsē]

NOUN

1. the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
   

Lol, seriously?

Then what are these regulations you tRumplings are always bitching about? Do they not exist?

As usual you missed the point.

Nope.

But that's ok, you scored some brownie points with your fellow tRumpling for defending him.

 

[NightFox]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated.

Whatever gave you that idea TN? Capitalism doesn't presuppose the absence of regulation, in fact it won't work at scale in the absence of regulation, how for example, would contract enforcement work? What about property rights, how would those be protected in the absence of regulation? What about the effects of cartelization limiting market competition?

Adam Smith didn't advocate for the absence of government regulation in the economy, he advocated for LIMITED and EQUITABLE government regulation of the economy.

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations

You remember when we were discussing socialism the other day? And i brought up how fire depts and the like was a bullshit argument for "me being a socialist?"
Im kinda at the same point here. Like companies not being able to drop their pollutants off in the local creek. Or a company not paying for subsidized work even with a contract. Things like that.
But that isnt what that federal supremacist was referring to.

TN, I understand where you're coming from, however I always caution against falling into the "all regulation of capitalism is bad" trap, since that's not the case and isn't what the Father of Capitalism advocated. The fact of the matter neither side pays attention beyond the partisan label on individual regulations and lets partisan talking heads define what each one is rather than looking at the details and imagining all to probable economic effects. Heck even the politicians that vote for bills leading to regulation rarely understand the economic effects in their totality, but you can rest assured the lobbyists that help write them do.

The left tends to see any regulation coming out of Tribe-D as "good" while the right tends to see any new/changed regulation as "bad", it blinds both to the fact that regulation that enhances competition, inhibits rent seeking and systemic risk taking and expands the benefits of capitalism to the most people possible is highly desirable. This SHOULD be an area that the two tribes can agree on, however their heads are so spun by duopoly that they only care about the partisan brand label on the box and NOT what's actually inside it.

An example, Donald Trump made much of his "de-regulation" efforts, however if one looks at what he did in detail one finds that he was just throwing out regulation for the sake of throwing out regulation, he threw out as much "good" regulation and he did "bad" regulation, with the net of effect of increasing the risk for negative unintended consequences.

The quote I gave you from Adam Smith is warning against regulation coming from those whose interests it is to limit competition, enhance rent-seeking and systemic risk and narrowing the benefits of capitalism to the citizenry. Which in the parlance of today, equals special interests (e.g. corporations, unions) using the machinery of government to regulate for self-serving ends, which means BOTH of the political crime families.

Stay cool TN!

 

[TNHarley]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated.

Whatever gave you that idea TN? Capitalism doesn't presuppose the absence of regulation, in fact it won't work at scale in the absence of regulation, how for example, would contract enforcement work? What about property rights, how would those be protected in the absence of regulation? What about the effects of cartelization limiting market competition?

Adam Smith didn't advocate for the absence of government regulation in the economy, he advocated for LIMITED and EQUITABLE government regulation of the economy.

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations

You remember when we were discussing socialism the other day? And i brought up how fire depts and the like was a bullshit argument for "me being a socialist?"
Im kinda at the same point here. Like companies not being able to drop their pollutants off in the local creek. Or a company not paying for subsidized work even with a contract. Things like that.
But that isnt what that federal supremacist was referring to.

TN, I understand where you're coming from, however I always caution against falling into the "all regulation of capitalism is bad" trap, since that's not the case and isn't what the Father of Capitalism advocated. The fact of the matter neither side pays attention beyond the partisan label on individual regulations and lets partisan talking heads define what each one is rather than looking at the details and imagining all to probable economic effects. Heck even the politicians that vote for bills leading to regulation rarely understand the economic effects in their totality, but you can rest assured the lobbyists that help write them do.

The left tends to see any regulation coming out of Tribe-D as "good" while the right tends to see any new/changed regulation as "bad", it blinds both to the fact that regulation that enhances competition, inhibits rent seeking and systemic risk taking and expands the benefits of capitalism to the most people possible is highly desirable. This SHOULD be an area that the two tribes can agree on, however their heads are so spun by duopoly that they only care about the partisan brand label on the box and NOT what's actually inside it.

An example, Donald Trump made much of his "de-regulation" efforts, however if one looks at what he did in detail one finds that he was just throwing out regulation for the sake of throwing out regulation, he threw out as much "good" regulation and he did "bad" regulation, with the net of effect of increasing the risk for negative unintended consequences.

The quote I gave you from Adam Smith is warning against regulation coming from those whose interests it is to limit competition, enhance rent-seeking and systemic risk and narrowing the benefits of capitalism to the citizenry. Which in the parlance of today, equals special interests (e.g. corporations, unions) using the machinery of government to regulate for self-serving ends, which means BOTH of the political crime families.

Stay cool TN!

Excellent post Fox! Why you my bro

 

[NightFox]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated. Therefore, that would be a redundancy
redundancy
[rəˈdəndənsē]

NOUN

1. the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.

Lol, seriously?

Then what are these regulations you tRumplings are always bitching about? Do they not exist?

As usual you missed the point.

Nope.

But that's ok, you scored some brownie points with your fellow tRumpling for defending him.

Er.. um.. NEITHER of the posters you're referring could be considered "tRumplings" by any reasonable person.

Have you redefined the term to mean, "anybody that says anything I don't like"? Why can't you just disagree with what was posted and explain your reasons for disagreement instead of slinging meaningless invective in attempt to demonize someone because they don't happen to see things the way you do? Do you believe that tactic convinces anyone that your arguments are worthy of consideration?

Have a nice day.

 

[gipper]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

"unregulated capitalism" how redundant

Not really, no.

Capitalism, in itself, is unregulated. Therefore, that would be a redundancy
redundancy
[rəˈdəndənsē]

NOUN

1. the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.

Lol, seriously?

Then what are these regulations you tRumplings are always bitching about? Do they not exist?

As usual you missed the point.

Nope.

But that's ok, you scored some brownie points with your fellow tRumpling for defending him.

Er.. um.. NEITHER of the posters you're referring could be considered "tRumplings" by any reasonable person.

Have you redefined the term to mean, "anybody that says anything I don't like"? Why can't you just disagree with what was posted and explain your reasons for disagreement instead of slinging meaningless invective in attempt to demonize someone because they don't happen to see things the way you do? Do you believe that tactic convinces anyone that your arguments are worthy of consideration?

Have a nice day.

Well he’s an

 

[Indeependent]

In the richest nation on earth. That’s a lot of poor suffering Americans.

What a great country!
Pandemic Swells Medicaid Enrollment to 80 Million People, a ‘High-Water Mark’

Unregulated capitalism will do that to ya.

You mean Unfettered by regulations.